In 1973, historian Russell Weigley described America's approach to war as a “strategy of annihilation.” Such strategies aim to identify a single clear objective, a decisive battle or series of battles in which victory will result in the surrender of the enemy. Gens. Grant and Sherman demonstrated this approach during the Civil War, and America's victory in World War II established a deep reservoir of beliefs in both the military and the public that supported a strategy of annihilation.
Many Americans today, in the aftermath of the war on terror and the unexpected backlash, are less accepting of extermination strategies as a way to wage war than they were a half-century ago. Unfortunately, despite the lessons painfully learned on the battlefield, this strategy of annihilation could not be prevented from permeating American politics and culture. Too many times we see binary oppositions that allow no outcome other than a decisive victory for one side.
The debate over the crisis in higher education provides the latest example of how the pursuit of illusory ideological victories can undermine urgently needed efforts to redesign universities as centers of learning.
This crisis has been building up for a long time. Concerns about the cost of higher education have steadily increased over the past few decades, with the percentage of Americans who think college is affordable nearly halved from 39 percent to 22 percent between 1985 and 2011. did. In 2017, Republican views said attitudes toward higher education had changed significantly, with a majority saying for the first time they felt universities were having a negative impact on society. Republicans were more likely to cite concerns about the politicization of campus culture (reflected, for example, in the sharp decline in the number of faculty who identify as conservative) and affordability, but the ultimate impact , by 2023, trust in higher education will have collapsed. .
The Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th, and especially the failure of many university leaders to adequately respond to the subsequent rise in anti-Semitism, added serious tension to the situation. For many Americans, including those who were less involved in this issue, the illiberal campus culture that justifies and in some cases celebrates the brutal killing of innocent people is on full display. It looked like.
While rightly criticizing the rigid practices on many campuses and the indefensible nature of some of the views expressed there since October 7, too many calls for reform in higher education , employs a strategy of annihilation in the way it frames the situation. This is evident, for example, in investor Bill Ackman's discussion of how to turn around Harvard University, which focuses primarily on DEI (which Ackman calls “a powerful movement that has permeated not just Harvard but the entire educational system”). It is based on abolishing expressions) as the basis. objective.
Strategies like this were gaining momentum even before October 7th. For example, the Individual Rights Expression Foundation, which featured prominently in Florida's Stop WOKE law, opposed the law out of concern that it would effectively “exchange one legitimacy for another.” Did. However, calls for significant personnel changes based on perceived ideology are now increasingly common as a prerequisite for improving higher education.
The problem with this framework is that a strategy of annihilation will almost certainly fail to improve universities. For such a strategy to be successful, there must be a clear dimension, which does not exist in higher education, no matter how much one tries to argue otherwise. Most Americans think of college primarily in instrumental rather than ideological terms. Most people don't want universities to be “woke” or “anti-woke.” They only want universities to perform a series of functions, especially to help students secure jobs and embark on successful careers.
Furthermore, although research shows a strong liberal bias among students, professors, and administrators, views are far from monolithic. Even on hot-button issues, most people's views are not rigidly fixed, but rather fluid and uncertain. But annihilation strategies make it easy to have enemies everywhere. This causes reformers to go too far, alienating potential partners, and cause further disruption and radicalization on campus;.
Finally, extinction strategies in higher education are self-defeating. In a free society, the worldview of students and faculty should not be the primary concern. Individuals can hold a wide range of opinions, even those that society as a whole may disagree with. As Andrew Gillen of the Cato Institute points out, trying to exclude any ideological movement undermines the very purpose of promoting a more open and robust learning environment.
In short, no decisive political battle can be won in the campus culture wars. But many campuses clearly have challenging environments. What strategies should reformers pursue?
One solution begins with changing the analogy from war to organizational design. Advancing higher education does not involve defeating an enemy, but rather requires reinvigorating the focus on what management scholars would call the core competencies of universities. . In this framework, the important question is not “what do people believe?'' but “what work should be done?'' The Core Capabilities Framework prioritizes the services, experiences, and products that universities must provide to students, parents, faculty, and other relevant audiences. This emphasis shifts the conversation from personal psychology and political views to how universities are governed and managed.
Organizational design approaches offer a more promising path to revitalize higher education because they can better diagnose the situation. In an age of hyperpolarization, it is common to view environments such as the business world, campuses, and churches as simply containers for large-scale culture wars, when in reality, each environment is different. When it comes to higher education, a large part of today's crisis has to do with what is called “competence creep.” This means that institutions are losing sight of their most important competencies, particularly those related to providing relevant, accessible and affordable learning, and are instead focusing on other competencies, such as those related to advocacy. Emphasize ability.
Consider the growth of centers and institutes across universities. For example, the University of Pennsylvania's Environmental Innovation Initiative lists 34 different centers or institutes related to addressing environmental issues. This reflects the general situation in higher education. There, a series of centers located within the institution but existing slightly independently of the institution itself focus on addressing contemporary policy and social issues. None of these centers may have much influence over an institution, but as they grow in size or increase in number, they change the institution's strategic calculus and make the institution less influential than learning. may also become more focused on advocacy.
Extermination strategies seek to end such efforts because they are perceived to be politicized. Such sweeping changes are not only likely to spark a backlash, but also challenge initiatives that many on campus might consider core competencies, such as partnering with industry for mutually beneficial research. It may also undermine other efforts.
An organizational design strategy instead begins with a series of questions to identify how such centers or institutions provide or subtract from core capabilities. . These questions include: What core functions is the center explicitly linked to? Who makes decisions about the center's activities? How transparent is the decision-making process? ?And how well do decision-making teams reflect the university's stakeholders? This approach allows higher education leaders to identify and support structures and strategies that best serve their most important capabilities. , those that don't can be reformed or eliminated.
A similar example can be applied to endowments and investments. Over the past decade, about 3 percent of U.S. higher education institutions (representing 39 percent of their endowment assets) have divested from fossil fuel companies. Viewed as an ideological issue, it sets the stage not only for rollback but also for reverse divestment efforts. Although these efforts have opposing goals, they are similar in that they create governance structures that allow endowments to be used for ideological goals.
An organization design approach instead assesses the situation through the lens of core competencies and decision-making processes. Rather than imposing ideological litmus tests, higher education leaders need to understand what jobs universities need their endowments to do, what governance structures are best suited to carry out those jobs, and It will consider the impact of different options on a wide range of institutions. It was this approach that led then-Harvard University President Drew Faust to warn against fossil fuel sales in 2013. Applying economic pressure for social purposes can carry serious risks to the independence of academic enterprise. ”
This framework also applies to conflicts over freedom of speech and expression on campus. Adopting clear principles supporting free speech, pluralism, and strong debate, such as those associated with the Chicago Statement, could be a wise step for many institutions. However, for a set of principles to be effective, they must be incorporated into a decision-making system that is applied holistically throughout the organization. It not only determines what kinds of speakers an institution will allow, but also who can make these decisions, how the institution will resolve conflicting requests, and its We also need to address how to apply principles like these more broadly across campus activities.
The need to consider university activities holistically emphasizes another advantage of the organizational design strategy: its simplicity. At the most basic level, such a strategy involves a series of simple steps. Identify core capabilities. Form a decision-making and management structure to maximize these abilities. Ensure transparency and accountability. Then evaluate, iterate, and improve. At a time when trust in higher education is so low and tensions so high, reformers must contend with increasing complexity and efforts to maintain processes that are clearly communicated to everyone.
However, just because it's simple doesn't mean it's easy. There are always trade-offs and conflicts to resolve. Different groups require different competencies in higher education. For example, faculty and industry partners may have contrasting expectations about the extent to which universities prioritize preparing students for careers versus the responsibilities of citizenship. Given the diverse interests that universities must consider, from students and parents to faculty and donors, the process of organizing around core functions is anything but orderly. And it will play out differently for each institution based on its unique circumstances.
However, while recognizing these risk factors, organizational design strategies provide any institution with a clear path forward that is more viable and less ideologically influenced than strategies that destroy the organization. The strategies of annihilation being pursued today may grab headlines, but they will not change higher education.
