At current rates, almost all U.S. public universities could reach a point of zero state subsidy within the next fifty years. What is a public university without public funding? In this essay, Kathleen Knight Abowitz considers the future of public universities, drawing upon the analysis provided in John Dewey’s Democracy and Education. Knight Abowitz conducts an initial institutional analysis through two broad prisms: that of the political landscape that authorizes universities as public institutions, and that of the present political–economic context of public education in general and public universities in particular. Dewey’s conception of democratic education is then explored; his arguments regarding aims, experience, thinking, and social intelligence provide important tools for imagining the democratic futures of public universities today. At current rates, almost all U.S. public universities could reach a point of zero state subsidy within the next fifty years.1 What is a public university without public funding? This essay is about the future of public universities, drawing upon the analysis of democracy and education provided in John Dewey’s masterwork of the same name. I first conduct an initial institutional analysis through two broad prisms: that of the political landscape that authorizes universities as public institutions, and that of the present political–economic context of public education in general and public universities in particular. I then turn to Dewey’s conception of democratic education; his arguments regarding aims, experience, thinking, and social intelligence provide important tools for imagining the democratic futures of public universities today. While Dewey wrote little that spoke directly to university purpose or governance, Democracy and Education provides foundational ideas useful to university educators today. From Dewey’s democratic education concept comes the claim defended here that public higher education’s possible democratic futures must be powerfully shaped by the voices and perspectives of educators and students, not higher education managers or political governing boards. Higher education’s public mission, absent flourishing state support, must be invented and fought for using the kinds of democratic virtues and social intelligence that can be in short supply in university and public life. I defend that thesis and, in the conclusion, describe Dewey’s contributions as well as limitations in helping us face the present crisis. Throughout the essay I take a bifocal approach to the analysis: I shift from the broader, national and transnational conditions shaping public universities 1. Thomas G. Mortenson, “State Funding: A Race to the Bottom,” American Council on Education (Winter 2012), http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-a-race-tothe-bottom.aspx. EDUCATIONAL THEORY Volume 66 Number 1–2 2016 © 2016 Board of Trustees University of Illinois 182 E D U C A T I O N A L T H E O R Y Volume 66 Number 1–2 2016 to the local conditions at my own institution, Miami University.2 This is not because my university represents some sort of model empirical point of evidence, although I think our trends are illustrative enough of the larger context. Rather, my methodology is trying to emulate Deweyan forms of inquiry, seeking local understandings and social intelligence through taking a broader, wider view, but then returning to action in our own spheres, with perhaps more points of flexibility than broader analyses might enable us to envision.3 Rather than bringing the critique of the scholar functioning at a distance, I frame the analysis within my present circumstance so as to contribute to the social intelligence we need in order to address our current problems. My method here is part of my argument. I am both modeling Deweyan philosophical inquiry and advancing it as a means to address the problems of public universities. While I will take stances critical of my institution and its leadership — here lies a fundamental point in my argument — I am the institution, and possess agency as a citizen here. As an educator employed with the privilege of tenured status, I am this university and its future, at the present moment. I take this stance because I have a deep regard for the institution, my colleagues, our students, our constituencies, and because my self-interests are intertwined with theirs. I also believe it cheap to blame the phantom of “the institution” as if I was not part of it, indeed one of its beneficiaries. And finally, I take this stance because philosophical problems “arise because of widespread and widely felt difficulties in social practice,” as Dewey notes in the final chapter of Democracy of Education.4 We ourselves feel the pinch of them in our daily existences, and thus are best qualified to create the social intelligence needed to respond. The Public of Public Universities in the Elite-Dominated State My university is public, the first founded in the state of Ohio, chartered in 1809 (and on lands formerly belonging to the Myaamia tribe, now of Oklahoma). 2. I also utilize this bifocal conception in Kathleen Knight Abowitz, Publics for Public Schools: Legitimacy, Democracy, and Leadership (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2012). 3. See Thomas Alexander, “Dewey’s Denotative-Empirical Method: A Thread through the Labyrinth,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 18, no. 3 (2004): 248–56. 4. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (1916), in John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899–1924, vol. 9, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980), 338. This work will be cited in the text as DE for all subsequent references. All references to Dewey’s works will be to the multivolume series comprising The Early Works, 1882–1898, The Middle Works, 1899–1924, and The Later Works, 1925–1953, edited by Jo Ann Boydston and published by Southern Illinois University Press. Volumes in this series will henceforth be cited as EW, MW, and LW, respectively; for example, the citation “Democracy and Education (1916), MW 9, 338” indicates that this work appears in Middle Works from this series, volume 9, and the discussion or quotation cited is on page 338. KATHLEEN KNIGHT ABOWITZ is Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University, 304 McGuffey Hall, Oxford, OH 45056; e-mail . Her scholarship utilizes political and moral philosophy to explore questions of community, the public, and civic aspects of K–16 schooling. Knight Abowitz Imagining Democratic Futures for Public Universities 183 The idea of “public” preceding “university” describes a type of postsecondary institution linked to the state (government). Public universities have predictable forms. The state authorizes the public university by regulating governance and funding mechanisms. The state supports and shapes the infrastructure of public universities through providing budgetary support. Both these linkages to governmental bodies distinguish the form of public universities from that of other postsecondary institutions. These linkages have shaped the function of public higher education upon its students and communities. Despite being founded on lands taken from the native tribes, public universities like mine have historically been institutions, ideally and sometimes actually, of service to and cultivation of the societies that created them. The creation of new knowledge that benefits the society; the importance of educating America’s next generational leaders; and the mission to extend educational access across classes and groups are prominent reasons why states funded the expanding public university system of the twentieth century.5 While historically mixed with private purposes for pursuing a university education, public goals are increasingly on the wane in higher education. One reason is the larger political climate in the United States and globally. The broader democratic structures in which public higher education now operates reflect an “economic elite domination,” according to authors of a 2014 article in which a large data set of longitudinal policy preferences among diverse voters showed clearly that “average citizens’ preferences ... have essentially zero estimated impact upon policy change, while economic elites are still estimated to have a very large, positive, independent impact.”6 Assessing such trends, progressive editorialists see democracy weakening. “Put together our 1 percent elections, the privatization of our government, the de-legitimization of Congress and the presidency, as well as the empowerment of the national security state and the US military ... and you have something like a new ballgame.”7 Public higher education policies, it can easily be argued, no longer necessarily reflect the interests of the average voter but more often the interests of economic elites and organized interest groups; the public aims of higher education have become increasingly privatized. While the United States has never truly had a “public university” system in the same way that other industrialized nation–states have accomplished by providing no-cost higher education to citizens, public universities have for most 5. A recent essay by David Labaree cautions against a romantic longitudinal view of higher education’s history. Labaree argues that America’s view of higher education as a public good was only promoted and widely accepted from around 1940–1970, during the postwar interim. Before and since, Labaree states, higher education has largely been thought to be a private good. See David F. Labaree, “An Affair to Remember: America’s Brief Fling with the University as a Public Good,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 50, no. 1 (2016): 20–36. 6. Martin Gilens and Benjamin R. Page, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 3 (2014): 575. 7. Tom Englehardt, “Is a New Political Syst

中文翻译：

---

想像公立大学的民主未来：反对宿命论诱惑的教育领导

按照目前的速度，在接下来的五十年内，几乎所有美国公立大学都可以达到零州补贴的水平。什么是没有公共资金的公立大学？在本文中，凯瑟琳·奈特·阿波维兹（Kathleen Knight Abowitz）借鉴约翰·杜威（John Dewey）的《民主与教育》（Democracy and Education）中提供的分析，考虑了公立大学的未来。奈特·阿波维兹（Knight Abowitz）进行了初步的制度分析，它通过两个大的角度进行分析：授权大学为公共机构的政治格局，以及普通和公立大学中公共教育的当前政治经济背景。然后探讨了杜威的民主教育概念。他关于目标，经验，思想和社会智慧的论据为想象当今公立大学的民主未来提供了重要工具。按照目前的速度，在未来五十年内，几乎所有美国公立大学都可以达到零州补贴的水平。1什么是没有公共资金的公立大学？本文基于约翰·杜威同名著作中对民主和教育的分析，着眼于公立大学的未来。我首先通过两个大的角度进行初步的制度分析：授权大学为公共机构的政治格局的分析，以及对普通和特别是公立大学的公共教育的当前政治经济背景的分析。然后，我转向杜威的民主教育概念。他关于目标，经验，思想和社会智慧的论据为想象当今公立大学的民主未来提供了重要工具。尽管杜威几乎没有写过直接谈到大学宗旨或治理的文章，但民主与教育为当今的大学教育者提供了有用的基础思想。从杜威的民主教育概念可以得出这样的论点，即公共高等教育的可能民主前途必须由教育者和学生而不是高等教育管理者或政治理事会的声音和观点来有力地塑造。缺少国家的大力支持，就必须发明和争取高等教育的公共使命，以利用在大学和公共生活中可能短缺的民主美德和社会智慧。我为这一论点辩护，并在总结中描述了杜威在帮助我们应对当前危机方面的贡献和局限性。在整篇文章中，我采用双焦点的方法进行分析：我从塑造公立大学的更广泛的，国家的和跨国的条件转变。1. Thomas G. Mortenson，“国家资助：一场从低到高的竞赛”，美国教育理事会（2012年冬季） ），http：//www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-a-race-tothe-bottom.aspx。教育理论第66卷第2016年第1-2期©2016伊利诺伊大学董事会182教育理论第2016年第1-2期根据我自己的学校迈阿密大学的当地情况。2这不是因为我的大学代表了某种模式经验证据，尽管我认为我们的趋势足以说明更大范围的情况。相反，我的方法是尝试模仿Deweyan的查询形式，通过采取更广泛，更广泛的观点来寻求当地的理解和社会智慧，但随后回到我们自己的领域中，也许比更广泛的分析具有更多的灵活性，这可能使我们能够设想3。距离遥远，我在当前情况下进行了分析，以便为解决当前问题而需要的社会智能做出贡献。我在这里的方法是我论点的一部分。我既在设计杜威延哲学探究，也将其作为解决公立大学问题的一种手段。尽管我会批评我的机构及其领导地位（这是我论证的基本要点），但我是该机构，在这里拥有作为公民的代理机构。作为享有终身职位特权的教育工作者，我现在是这所大学及其未来。我之所以采取这种立场，是因为我对学校，我的同事，我们的学生，我们的选民有着深切的关注，并且因为我的自身利益与他们的利益交织在一起。我还认为，怪罪“机构”的幻象便宜得好像我不是其中的一部分，确实是其受益者之一。最后，我采取这种立场是因为哲学问题“是由于社会实践中普遍存在的广泛困难而引起的”，正如杜威在《教育民主》的最后一章中指出的那样。4我们自己在日常生活中感到自己的痛苦，并且因此，最有资格创建响应所需的社会情报。精英统治的州的公立大学的公立大学我的大学是公立的，第一所大学成立于俄亥俄州，于1809年特许（并在以前属于Myaamia部落的土地上，现在是俄克拉荷马州）。2.我还在凯瑟琳·奈特·阿波维兹（Kathleen Knight Abowitz）的《公立学校的公众：合法性，民主和领导力》（博尔德，科罗拉多州：范式，2012）中也运用了这种双焦点概念。3.参见托马斯·亚历山大（Thomas Alexander），“杜威的说明性-经验方法：迷宫中的线索”，《投机哲学期刊》 18，第1期。3（2004）：248-56。4.约翰·杜威，《民主与教育》（1916年），载于约翰·杜威：中间作品，1899年至1924年，第一卷。9版。Jo Ann Boydston（Carbondale：伊利诺伊州南部大学出版社，1980年），第338页。此工作在本文中被引用为DE，以供以后引用。杜威作品的所有参考文献均为多卷本系列，包括1882–1898年的早期作品，1899–1924年的中间作品和1925–1953年的后来作品，这些作品由Jo Ann Boydston编辑并由南伊利诺伊大学出版社出版。此后，该系列的卷将分别称为EW，MW和LW。例如，引文“民主与教育（1916），第9、338页”表示该作品出现在该系列第9卷的中间作品中，引用的讨论或引用在第338页。凯瑟琳·奈特·阿博维茨（KATHLEEN KNIGHT ABOWITZ）是教授迈阿密大学教育领导力系，俄亥俄州牛津304 McGuffey Hall，邮政编码45056；电子邮件 。她的奖学金运用政治和道德哲学探索K-16学校教育的社区，公众和公民方面的问题。奈特·阿波威茨（Knight Abowitz）想像公立大学的民主未来183“大学”之前的“公共”概念描述了一种与国家（政府）联系的高等教育机构。公立大学具有可预测的形式。国家通过监管和资助机制授权公立大学。国家通过提供预算支持来支持和塑造公立大学的基础设施。这两种与政府机构的联系将公立大学的形式与其他大专院校的形式区分开来。这些联系塑造了公立高等教育对其学生和社区的作用。尽管建立在从土著部落获得的土地上，但像我这样的公立大学在历史上一直是机构，理想情况下有时甚至是实际上，对创建它们的社会的服务和培养。创造有益于社会的新知识；教育美国下一代领导人的重要性；以及在各个班级和群体中扩大教育机会的使命是州政府资助二十世纪不断扩大的公立大学系统的重要原因。5尽管历史上混合了追求大学教育的私人目的，但公共目标在高等教育中正日益萎缩。原因之一是美国和全球范围内更大的政治气氛。现在，公立高等教育所处的更广泛的民主结构反映了“经济精英的统治，”根据2014年一篇文章的作者说，其中大量的不同选民之间的纵向政策偏好数据清楚地表明，“平均公民的偏好...对政策变化的影响估计基本上为零，而经济精英仍然估计有6进步的社论主义者认为这样的趋势使民主制减弱了。“将我们的1％选举，政府的私有化，国会和总统的合法化，以及国家安全国家和美军的权力加起来……您将拥有新的局面。 “ 7高等教育的公共政策很容易被争论，不再必须反映普通选民的利益，而是更多地反映经济精英和有组织的利益集团的利益；高等教育的公共目标已日益私有化。尽管美国从来没有像其他工业化国家那样通过向公民免费提供高等教育来真正拥有“公立大学”系统，但公立大学最多只能拥有5所大学。David Labaree最近的一篇文章警告说反对高等教育历史的浪漫纵观。拉巴雷认为，直到1940年至1970年左右（战后过渡时期），美国才将高等教育视为一种公共物品。拉布雷说，在此之前和之后，高等教育在很大程度上被认为是私人物品。参见David F. Labaree，“要记住的事：美国作为大学的公共利益而与大学的短暂交往”，《教育哲学期刊》 50期，第1期。1（2016）：20–36。6. Martin Gilens和Benjamin R. Page，“美国政治的测试理论：精英，利益集团和普通公民”，《政治观点》，第12期，第1期。3（2014）：575。7.汤姆·恩格哈特，“是一个新的政治体系