"The Role of Universities in Responding to Technological and Economic Transformation"
Presented March 24, 2007, at the Second International Forum for University Presidents, Taipei, Taiwan

There is lively debate in the academy about whether or not "there must be a single overarching purpose to college." After reviewing numerous attempts to offer a unifying aim of university education, Derek Bok concludes that such attempts "take too narrow a view of the undergraduate experience." Thus he proposes several aims that "seem especially important: the ability to communicate, to think clearly and critically, to think carefully about moral issues, to fulfill their civic responsibilities, to live and work effectively with other people, to know about international affairs and about other countries and cultures, to give students a breadth of interests, and to prepare students for a career."

But irrespective of whether one supports the notion of a unifying aim or, a la Bok -- multiple aims -- the manner in which that comprehensive mission is being executed throughout the global community is undergoing unprecedented change. In part that is due to the exponential rate of growth acquiring and disseminating knowledge: it is predicted that the knowledge attained during this century will exceed all that was learned in the past twenty centuries combined, and then multiplied by a factor of ten.

Concomitantly, the capacity of the technologies employed to acquire and disseminate that knowledge is also growing at an exponential rate. Because of that extraordinary growth in information technology, Ray Kurzweil predicts that "the 21st century will be equivalent to 20,000 years of progress at today's rate ...which is a thousand times greater than [the rate of progress during] the 20th century." In retrospect, this era will surely be regarded as the era of learners who will have spent their entire lives in a world of electronic and linked technologies that open opportunities to learn about the relation among "ecological, cultural, economic, political and technological" systems.

The phenomenal expansion of knowledge and the profound impact of the technology revolution have wrought profound changes for all institutions of higher learning, but especially for our research universities. As the global economy evolves in the decades ahead the two biggest challenges our research universities will face are these: (1) incorporating into the implementation of our missions and our pedagogy the extraordinary advances in the speed and extent of knowledge acquisition and dissemination; (2) maintaining a healthy balance between exploiting the globalization of our economies by promoting partnerships among universities, as well as between universities and industries, while not allowing these alliances to dictate the nature of our enterprise or compromise fidelity to our respective missions.

With respect to the first challenge, our students -- weaned on technologically sophisticated media -- are demanding better quality instruction, particularly in the delivery of our pedagogy. But the resources that we are able to devote to instruction are increasingly constrained. Especially for those of us in American public universities, the legislative bodies who support us are reducing their financial support while simultaneously demanding increased efficiency. Marginson argues that "better efficiency and quality ... is the virtuous ideal glowing at the core of micro-economic reform in higher education."

There is considerable hyperbole in Marginson's argument. But it is undeniable that many institutions are responding to fiscal pressure from their legislatures and boards of trustees by positing that the romantic nineteenth-century model of Mark Hopkins, perched on one end of a log with a student on the other, should be replaced by the use of highly organized instruction with large numbers of students using sophisticated technology. Admittedly, any research university that aspires to be integral to the global village in the twenty-first century must plan strategically to use the myriad new technologies effectively and efficiently, while realizing that although individuals and societies may view life differently, there are "common needs and wants" that transcend political boundaries.

Regrettably, many research universities -- faced with massive and growing enrollments -- are succumbing to the notion that these sweeping changes in our pedagogy pose no threat to the integrity of our respective missions. But as Levine warns, it's easy for us to get caught up in the fervor accompanying the technological revolution without thoughtful examination of its relation to our overarching aims. He observes: "The biggest danger is that higher education may be the next railroad industry, which built bigger and better railroads decade after decade because that's the business it thought it was in. The reality was that it was in the transportation industry, and it was nearly put out of business by airplanes. Colleges and universities are not in the campus business, but the education business." Although students and faculty exhibit finely tuned sensitivity to the social transformation all about us, many show that they are blissfully unaware of Levine's admonition. In the face of this diffidence, we must insist that "universities are still about teaching and learning, among teachers and students, in a democratic, cross-cultural community based on mutual respect rather than hierarchy."

With respect to our second challenge, perhaps the most critical issue before us, as we willingly or not participate in the process of globalization, is determining how to engage these dramatic changes in a manner that builds on our historic mission and does not erode our institutional integrity. The threat to the maintenance of that integrity comes principally from two sources. The first source are the students and entrepreneurs who come to our doors focused on vocational preparation, wanting us to align our institutional goals with the demands of the global marketplace. Our respective societies, and particularly our students and their families, are enthusiastically embracing globalization. A corollary of this uncritical acceptance is that huge pressure is placed on our universities to develop and sustain curricula that will prepare our students for vocations in the global economy. Thus we are witnessing an unprecedented proliferation of colleges, universities, and business schools throughout the world.

Under the rubric of "increased relevance," students clamor to transform our universities into twenty-first century analogs of the medieval guilds of tradesmen in Western Europe, offering curricula they believe will optimize their career offerings. Although many of our graduates will indeed be employed by corporations propelling these Gargantuan social and economic changes -- and some of our alumni will undoubtedly spearhead these entities -- the primary purpose of our universities is to afford a broad, comprehensive education for those who do not desire to be employed in shaping this transformation as well as those who do.

The source of the second threat to our institutional integrity derives from the faculty and students wanting the university's research portfolio to be heavily oriented to the marketplace demands of the new millennium. But if a university wishes to expand entrepreneurial opportunities for its faculty, staff, and students while simultaneously maintaining fidelity to its mission, it will take tremendous energy and commitment by all members of the community, and especially those of us in university administration.

There is no question that commercial incentives and the forces of capitalism -- as well as the concomitant drive to vocational preparation -- have become increasingly evident on our campuses. In this environment, nurtured by powerful global forces, we must be ever vigilant to any threat to erode the basic values of the academy. Over a decade ago "Kit" Lasch presciently warned against "corporate control that has diverted social resources from the humanities into military and technological research," which reveals "the university's assimilation into the corporate order."

If we embark thoughtfully on initiatives made possible through the global knowledge revolution, we may sustain the integrity of our mission. But a balancing act is required to do so. On the one hand, it is essential that we address the inherent tension between sustaining the mandate to conduct scholarly investigations that lead to new knowledge in the humanities and social sciences, as well as the physical and biological sciences and engineering. Much of this scholarship will have absolutely no commercial benefit. On the other hand, we can at the same time sponsor research that offers abundant opportunity for translating intellectual property to commercial products, such as discovering drugs to attack the ravages of HIV infection and AIDS.

In order to equip our students to use our university resources most effectively as they embark on their respective careers, it is important that we take advantage of every available mechanism to overcome the traditional limitations of geography, space, and time to make our educational programs easily accessible. Mountain ranges and vast oceanic expanses were perceived by our respective ancestors as permanent and insurmountable barriers. These geographic hurdles, concomitant with the parochialism and xenophobia prevalent at that time and abetted by the extant primitive technology, kept our cultures apart for centuries. Clearly the cataclysmic advances in transportation and communication as well as substantial shifts in political ideology have reduced or eliminated the barriers that formerly separated us.

Friedman has described the phenomenon of globalization, which renders these historic barriers irrelevant: "There is something about the flattening of the world that is going to be qualitatively different from other such profound changes: the speed and breadth with which it is taking hold. This flattening process is happening at warp speed and directly or indirectly touching a lot more people on the planet at once. The great challenge for our time will be to absorb these changes in ways that do not overwhelm people but also do not leave them behind. None of this will be easy. But this is our task."

If we choose, our research universities all over the world may play an absolutely pivotal role in addressing this task. The flat world requires people who not only have the ability to find and retain pertinent data, but who also can analyze the wealth of available information and efficiently develop concepts and generalizations to solve problems. Technology is evolving so rapidly that the half-life of knowledge in many domains is measured in months. But the ability to think creatively and to use information productively is measured in lifetimes.

The precursors of our present-day universities in Taiwan and the United States were established continents apart and centuries ago by clusters of scholars and their devotees, galvanized in the search for knowledge, wisdom, clarity of thought, and the ability to communicate effectively. But as the pejorative term "ivory tower" connotes, they were usually isolated from communities of scholars in other cultures. These scholars, more often than not, were oriented to the regions in which they labored, and disparaged sustained discourse with scholars in other academies. Many shunned those in their respective communities who were not members of the academy.

To my mind, a wonderfully eloquent yet succinct challenge to this institutional insularity was given by the historian Richard Hofstadter in his commencement address at Columbia University in 1968, delivered amid the chaos arising from the occupation of several university buildings by student protesters and their subsequent mass arrest: "The delicate thing about the university is that it has a mixed character, that it is suspended between its position in the external world, with all its corruption and evils and cruelties, and the splendid world of our imagination." Our research universities derive much benefit from those who transcend the world of the mind and the world of the marketplace. Because of the influence of such persons, much of our institutional insularity has dissipated. But as that has occurred, our universities face in more palpable ways than ever before the temptation to allow initiatives sponsored by knowledge revolution-driven industries to determine our curricula, define the criteria by which faculty are selected, and reshape our vision.

The unparalleled growth of users of the new technologies, combined with the truly remarkable speed at which our global economy is evolving, threaten to overwhelm thoughtful reflection and deliberative planning for our institutional goals. We do well to remember that although scientific discovery stimulates the development of the goods and services of information-age corporations, their products are instruments to improve the quality of life our citizens enjoy. But the development of the products is not the goal of our educational system. They are a consequence of the means by which some of our scholarship is conducted, but surely not our ends.
In the midst of the ubiquitous push toward globalization, it is essential that we preserve the sanctity of the university as "a center of intellectual life that sustains a lively, self-reflective relation to the large world."

We must remind ourselves daily not to allow the techno-globalization tail to wag the university dog. While our universities have clearly played a role in facilitating this global revolution, "they are more than mere places of learning." We are obligated to equip our students to function as conscientious citizens, adding value to their respective communities and in doing so, enhancing the quality of our global society. "An academic degree should not be a hunting license only for self-advancement, but an indication of abilities to seek, cultivate, and sustain a richer common weal. It is not enough to achieve cultural literacy; we must engender social concern."

In Crossing the Divide, Kofi Annan -- former Secretary-General of the United Nations -- wrote: "Today, globalization, migration, integration, communication and travel are bringing different races, cultures and ethnicities into ever closer contact with each other. More than ever before, people do understand that they are being shaped by many cultures and influences, and that combining the familiar with the foreign can be a source of powerful knowledge and insight. People can and should take pride in their particular faith or heritage. But we can cherish what we are, without hating what we are not." This observation is highly compatible with the UNESCO Declaration on Higher Education, which urges our institutions to play a pivotal societal role: "Universities have a social responsibility to play an active role to make a better ... more peaceful and equitable world." Indeed, one of the principal roles of education in our respective countries is "promoting active citizenship as a condition for full participation in society."

Our universities clearly can play a pivotal role in fostering the emergence of a truly global society. Taiwan and the United States have a time-honored tradition of academic exchange. It is absolutely critical that we build on this tradition as we develop long-term partnerships among our colleges and universities with government and private sector partners in our respective countries while we simultaneously work toward finding solutions to important social and economic issues facing today's highly interdependent world. If we wish to offer ideas and practices that make our institutions highly attractive to students, all our education and training programs need to be of high quality, and -- to the extent possible -- delivered in multi-lingual formats with truly global accessibility.

Ironically, the university in medieval Europe -- after which research universities in North America are modeled -- was "perceived as a highly international institution," transcending national and "territorial frontiers." Indeed, that institution emerged as a collection of guilds of students from nations other than those in which the university was located. In moving away from the parochialism that regrettably has characterized much of higher education in recent centuries, we have much to learn from our counterparts in the corporate sector, of whom Peter Drucker observed: "In the new mental geography created by the railroad (in the Industrial Revolution), humanity mastered distance. In the mental geography of e(lectronic)-commerce, distance has been eliminated. There is only one economy and only one market. The competition is not local anymore -- it knows no boundaries." Businesses now enter worldwide markets overnight, and global commerce ventures allow corporations to deploy resources and management operations to any corner of the world on a moment's notice. Our universities need to emulate their nimbleness in delivering our educational offerings.

I first visited Taiwan in 1983, and I have visited your country many times since then. Our University of South Carolina faculty have several cooperative research and educational programs in place with our colleagues at Taiwanese universities. For example, two months from now, 18 of our students will enroll in a program at Ming Chuan entitled "Taiwan in Global Context." The sister relationship between the state of South Carolina and Taiwan enables us to offer greatly reduced tuition to Taiwanese students who enroll at our University. We also envisage research collaboration with Taiwanese scientists, international conferences, and visiting professorships. In doing so, we blend the best of both countries as our faculty and students invest their knowledge in economic and social transformation. "Information, and the knowledge that can flow from it, is more than ever the lifeblood of our economy and culture, so we must all become much more sophisticated consumers of it."

In this era of the flat world, no single university and no solitary nation has a monopoly on the knowledge required to solve all the problems we face. However, by working together -- collaborating from one end of the flattened earth to the other -- we can accomplish far more than if we worked in splendid isolation from our sister institutions. The synergies to be gained by sharing our resources offer virtually limitless possibilities. It is imperative that we university presidents assiduously promote truly global opportunities for our institutions. In undertaking such programs, we must underscore the benefits that accrue to all participants.

We have much to learn from each other. The principal impediments to the realization of this vision of global collaboration are shrinking from boldness of purpose and succumbing to the forces of parochialism and myopia. I pray that we will have the courage to sound a clarion call for cooperation among our nations that will produce scholarly collaboration and exchanges of faculty and students that is completely unprecedented not only in its scope, but also in its magnitude. The Confucian heritage of regarding education as a cherished virtue has been consistently evident in my visits over the past quarter century to numerous Taiwanese universities, and is abundantly evident at Ming Chuan University.

Together we will accomplish wonderful things. I sincerely believe that this conference offers concrete evidence that all of us have taken several steps in what I am confident will be a long yet highly productive journey.