Reviews/Comptes rendus
Values in Conflict: The University, the
Marketplace, and the Trials of Liberal
Education
by Paul Axelrod. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2002. Pp. xi, 203.
The modern university, according to Paul Axelrod,
Dean of Education at York University, is rooted in
the success of the idea of liberal education. Today,
liberal education is under attack, and with it, the
very foundation of our university system. The source
of the threat is government, both federal and provincial, which through funding cut-backs and policies and programs that provide disproportionate
support to disciplines such as engineering and applied sciences, technology, commerce and selected
professions, effectively undermine liberal education
and its disciplinary bases, the humanities, and the
social sciences. This emphasis on a reallocation of
resources away from the humanities and social sciences and toward pure and applied science, engineering, business and health sciences is transforming
the university, according to Axelrod, into little more
than a giant training centre based on a narrow
vocationalism. The research that is undertaken in
the modern university, according to this argument,
increasingly is funded by the private sector for the
purpose of private profit. In this era of globalization, universities are changing their purpose, away
from the cultivation of intellect (one of the core features of liberal education), and toward a utilitarian,
market-oriented focus.
If one follows this trajectory over the next decade, the dystopian university system envisioned by
Axelrod is one in which students pay exorbitant tuition ($20,000) to attend institutions that are functionally differentiated and far more limited in focus
than exists at present. Academic freedom will be all
but gone, faculty members will operate without collective agreements, research programs will be set
by committees of government, university and industry bodies, and most of the teaching will take place
through online instruction. “Nothing in this vision,”
according to Axelrod, is “incompatible with changes
223
that are already underway in Canada and elsewhere.”
Although it is not too late to reverse the trends toward this future, according to Axelrod, if current
trends persist, this future is ours.
Is Axelrod correct? In my view, the jury is out.
While Axelrod presents a forceful argument, he fails
to provide compelling evidence that demonstrates
either the magnitude of the changes currently
underway, or that such changes are arrayed on the
trajectory that he describes. Surely something has
been taking place in the relative importance of the
social sciences and humanities in Canadian universities, yet Axelrod’s analysis lacks the precision and
nuance necessary to identify precisely what these
changes are. Consequently, prescriptions to change
policy on the basis of such analysis would appear
premature.
Chapters one to three present Axelrod’s defence
of liberal education. Axelrod broadly defines liberal education as “activities that are designed to
cultivate intellectual creativity, autonomy and resilience; critical thinking; a combination of intellectual
breadth and specialized knowledge; comprehension
and tolerance of diverse ideas and experiences; informed participation in community life and effective communication skills” (pp. 34-35). Although
he discusses in some detail the meaning of each of
these elements of liberal education, the analysis falls
short of discussing the inherent tension between
some of them. For example, in the “combination of
intellectual breadth and specialized knowledge,” it
is not clear where one finds the optimal balance. By
way of illustration, most undergraduate degrees require that the student fulfill some “breadth” requirement, often involving the completion of a certain
number of course credits from each of several fields
of study, such as fine arts and humanities, pure and
applied sciences, and social and behavioural sciences. What is not clear from the analysis is how
many such “breadth” courses have typically been
required in the past, and how many are required today.
Hence, the theoretical issue is vague, and the empirical analysis is absent.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 2 2005
224 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Chapter four is the key chapter that explores the
theme of the book’s title, “values in conflict.” The
argument is as follows. In the period in which the
Canadian university system experienced its greatest expansion, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s,
the expansion occurred in the context of an implicit
but delicate balance between the government and
the university sector. The government would provide the funding for a significant expansion of the
university sector, and universities would rapidly increase the number of graduates produced and research undertaken. A key element in this balance
involved the willingness of government to provide
universities with the autonomy to determine their
own priorities, and with the capacity to direct their
funding internally as they (i.e., universities) saw fit.
This consensus, according to Axelrod, no longer
exists. Government policy has produced three kinds
of changes — a reduction in the base operating grant
to universities, with an increased proportion of funds
for undergraduate programs coming from tuition
fees; a greater emphasis on research that has a practical (i.e., commercial or policy-oriented) effect; and
a greater proportion of funding dedicated to some
disciplines, particularly those like engineering, business, applied science and health sciences, that have
a direct economic benefit. Although some evidence
is presented to indicate that these changes are occurring to a certain extent, a compelling case is not
made with respect to the trajectory discussed above.
Indeed, rather than the kind of dramatic shift discussed by Axelrod, Canadian universities appear to
be characterized by a remarkable stability.
The final substantive chapter concerns the teaching and learning environment. Here again, Axelrod
views a system in the throes of considerable change.
University faculty members, and universities as organizations, pay too little regard to the quality of
the learning environment. As class sizes have increased, there has been insufficient attention paid
to adapting pedagogical styles and approaches to this
environment. In addition, the university of the fu-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
ture will be characterized by a growing reliance on
educational technology, the effect of which will be
further to undermine the tenets of liberal education.
Once again, the force of this argument is weakened
by the lack of empirical evidence. Research by the
PEW Endowment in the United States, for example, suggests that in most universities, a relatively
small number of courses account for a very substantial number of total course enrollees, and that a
number of pedagogical approaches, referred to as
“blended learning” may provide for enhanced quality of instruction at universities. With respect to the
issue of increased use of educational technology, the
enthusiasm among university administrators that
accompanied the introduction of the Internet as a
tool for computer-mediated instruction has during
the past decade been supplanted by a growing realization that in the present and future, most students
will continue to complete most of their degreecourse requirements through courses that provide
face-to-face interaction with the instructor.
Values in Conflict provides a useful discussion
of a number of the forces operating on the postsecondary education system in Canada. But the future it portrays for universities is apocryphal and
premised on a trajectory that is highly speculative.
In the concluding chapter on educational futures,
Axelrod presents one educational future, in which
universities are largely vocational training institutions that conduct private, for-profit research. An
alternative future to this is one where universities
continue to offer liberal education by remaining
thriving multidisciplinary institutions that require
breadth for graduates in all programs, that continue
to conduct research in the public interest by ensuring that most research continues to be funded either
through endowments or by governmental sources,
and in which university faculty continue to conduct
their teaching and research under the protection of
academic freedom. The difficulty with Axelrod’s
analysis is that, in the end, one is not able to determine which of the alternative futures is more likely.
Whereas the book provides a number of interesting
VOL . XXXI , NO . 2 2005
Reviews/Comptes rendus
propositions about the future of higher education,
the lack of empirical support for the propositions,
and the relatively modest analyses of policy changes
such as the introduction of the Canada Foundation
for Innovation and the Canada Research Chairs programs, suggest that further analysis is necessary
225
before consideration should be given to significant
changes in higher education policy.
KEITH ARCHER, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 2 2005
226 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the
News
by Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2003. Pp. 188.
Trying to determine the views of those who deliver
the news, along with how much those views shape
the information put before Canadians, can be a difficult but worthwhile exercise. Lydia Miljan and
Barry Cooper take on the exercise in a carefully
constructed report called Hidden Agendas: How
Journalists Influence the News. That provocative
title, along with the cover photo of a somewhat furtive-looking male, is ultimately a lot scarier than
what can be definitively concluded from their report. Miljan and Cooper themselves concede that
their work is “incomplete,” and “but one snapshot
of journalists compared with news coverage.” Still,
they methodically build toward their main argument — that the ideological views of Canadian journalists are largely post-materialist, and those views
determine which stories get told and how they get
told (more often than do the presumed views of managers or owners). Very broadly speaking, postmaterialists place great importance on such things
as gender equality, environmentalism, multiculturalism and so on — priorities usually labelled
“left of centre.”
It should be mentioned that Cooper is the author
of the previously published Sins of Omission: Shaping the News at CBC TV, a report aimed at proving
that the CBC (where I worked for many years) has
a left-leaning bias which influences the news it runs.
Critical reaction to Sins of Omission at the time included the suggestion that it was overly dependent
on qualitative analysis, and cast its research net too
narrowly to come to any meaningful conclusions. It
seems attempts are made to avoid such pitfalls in
Hidden Agendas — the authors deploy quantitative
research and analysis of more than one media outlet. They first sought to establish the attitudes and
beliefs of French- and English-speaking journalists
through a survey; as comparison, the general popu-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
lation was also surveyed. The survey analysis of
English-speaking journalists, however, only included those working for large-market media outlets pre-determined by the authors to be the most
“influential.” Although English-speaking journalists
working in TV, radio and newspapers in small markets were also surveyed, they supposedly showed
markedly different views from their colleagues staffing larger market outlets. Oddly, they were then
excluded from the analysis, even though it can be
argued that they, too, have an impact on public discourse (the authors didn’t find significant differences
among French-speaking journalists, therefore included small-market French-speaking journalists).
While small-market media outlets often utilize national stories from major news services, there are
still small-market editorials and columns, as well
as coverage of local institutions such as city or municipal councils, school boards, courts, and community organizations. Is there an audience for this
material? Yes, according to a 2004 study by the Canadian Media Research Consortium. It suggests that of
the 42 percent of Canadians who read a newspaper
daily, 45 percent read a local paper, while 28 percent
read a national publication. Of the 67 percent who
watch TV news, there is an almost even split between
those who watch local newscasts (55 percent) and those
who watch national newscasts (54 percent).
The next phase of Miljan and Cooper’s report
measured coverage of specific stories against the
views of journalists. In an analysis of reports dealing
with unemployment causes and solutions, as one
example, the authors found that coverage from six
major French and English media outlets, both
individually and overall, offered up a range of
views — neutral, tilted left or tilted right. Analysis
of two English newspapers following a 1998 Supreme Court of Canada decision — that Alberta
human rights law violated the Charter by not protecting homosexuals — showed that both sides of
the debate were represented (as was a lesser amount
of neutral coverage), with the percentage of reports
favouring the decision slighter greater than those
critical of it.
VOL . XXXI , NO . 2 2005
Reviews/Comptes rendus
It all adds up to the notion that it would be a
stretch, based on the information presented, to conclude that Canadian news is precariously skewed by
post-materialist journalists guided by personal “hidden agendas.” Miljan and Cooper’s limited data, in
fact, seem to show something worth celebrating —
a national media that offers up a healthy overall
balance of opinions and viewpoints. To refer back
to the opening point, any attempt to determine the
views of journalists and how those views shape their
reports can be a difficult but worthwhile exercise.
The authors seem aware that their study has gaps;
227
they point out, for example, that their surveys were
conducted before the advent of the National Post or
changes in ownership involving the Asper family. A
more complete study could contribute in a new and
meaningful way to any discussion about the Canadian media and its influence on public opinion and
public policy. As Miljan and Cooper wisely conclude, their “work is far from over.”
SUSAN HARADA, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 2 2005
228 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Collective Autonomy: A History of the Ontario
Council of Universities, 1962–2000
by Edward J. Monahan. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press, 2004.
COU (the Council of Ontario Universities) is a voluntary association of senior administrators which
represents the publicly-funded universities of Ontario. This book gives an insider’s history of COU,
founded in 1971, and its institutional predecessor,
CPOU (the Committee of Presidents of the Ontario
Universities), established in 1962. The author, a philosopher-turned-administrator, served COU as an
executive assistant (1971), an institutional member
(as president of Laurentian University, 1972–77),
and executive director (1977–91).
Monahan’s Collective Autonomy can be read in
tandem with another recent insider’s account:
Howard C. Clark, Growth and Governance of Canadian Universities: An Insider’s View (UBC Press,
2003). Clark was a junior faculty member of the
UBC Chemistry Department (1957–65), department
head at University of Western Ontario (1965–75),
vice-president academic at Guelph (1975–86), and
president of Dalhousie (1986–95). Whereas
Monahan’s institutional account features the interface between the Ontario universities and the provincial government, Clark treats a range of
governance issues from the perspectives of different positions in four national universities.
Canadian universities underwent a profound
transformation over the half-century covered by the
two books. Well into the 1950s, they were small,
private, primarily undergraduate institutions. Then
they entered an era (1958–1960s) of explosive enrolment growth that was facilitated by government
funds to cover costs. In contrast, the 1970s and 1980s
evidenced episodes of a softening of demand for a
university education, shortages of jobs for graduates, a slippage in standing with the public, and
growing constraints on government funding. Then
came the 1990s, with Ontario’s “common sense
revolution” and drastic funding cuts. Monahan sumCANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
marizes the transformation of university education
as a movement from a private good (pre-1958) to a
government-funded public good (1960s) and then
gradually to a government-assisted private good. No
longer a collection of autonomous units, Ontario
universities had fused into an inchoate provincial
system of 14 institutions.
The establishment of CPOU/COU by Ontario university presidents responded to the transformation,
with its growing dependence of universities on government funding, the eventual contraction of government funding from highs of the heady 1960s, and
government pressure to rationalize the university
system, with attendant risks to the traditional autonomy of universities.
COU largely succeeded in developing and preserving “collective autonomy” for the provincial universities, whence the book’s title. It was able to do
so because government accepted that university autonomy was desirable and chose to work through
COU rather than by direct intervention.
In contrast, COU largely failed to rationalize Ontario universities as a system despite pressure to do
so from declining levels of government funding.
Each university added new programs without regard
to duplication and the financial consequences for
the collectivity. Each acted as if all 14 universities
were equally excellent in all fields that they proposed to offer. Enhancements to the system were
slender. These included the establishment of: OCGS
to appraise graduate programs (1964); intra-library
loan (1971); and the Ontario University Applications
Centre in Guelph (1971).
Rationalization failed because COU was a voluntary association of institutional members who were
competitors with distinctive self-interests as well as
collaborators in a system. Elitist pretensions by some
institutions were a source of fission. Thus, in 1985 a
Group of Five self-styled “research-intensive universities” (McMaster, Queen’s, Toronto, Waterloo, Western) began to meet informally outside COU.
VOL . XXXI , NO . 2 2005
Reviews/Comptes rendus
A more extreme voice of élitism comes from the
acting president of the University of Toronto, who
opined,
The trouble is, [intellectual] elitism is a dirty
word in Canada … “Good enough” is good
enough for us. And so, in addition to competing
against health care, the U of T must compete for
public funds against every second-, third-, and
fourth-rate university and community college in
every far-flung part of the province, all of which
argue they are equally, if not more, deserving.
We’d rather have 100 centres of mediocrity than
one centre of excellence. (Globe & Mail, 8 February 2005, column by Margaret Wente)
229
In closing, Collective Autonomy is a useful addition to the literature on Canadian university governance. As one might anticipate from a COU
insider, the author is a system-rationalizer by inclination. As such, his story is one of modest achievements for the immense effort and labour involved.
A goodly portion of the book’s content takes the
reader through commission reports and studies
whose recommendations were never implemented.
Statistical information is meager, and the text frequently is unclear about the year in which a given
development occurred (e.g., when CPOU became
COU).
G EORGE E MERY , History and Associate Dean of
Graduate Studies, University of Western Ontario
This surely is a gloomy vision of the Ontario university scene and a tough sell indeed to the institutional members of COU.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXXI, NO. 2 2005