12th Bacchus reading group meeting
Kant, I. ([1794] 2018). The conflict of the philosophy faculty with the theology faculty. M. Gregor (Trans.), The idea of the university. A reader, 1, 3-18.
Something that is very noticeable throughout the entire text, is that there is an unanimous presentation and reverence of the state as something benign and beneficial. In as much, as the appeals to the state are made in that it represents the ultimate power, and whilst the university ought to have self-determination, it ultimately is justified as being beneficial to the state itself.
Apparently there were some issues with censorship of the text, significantly delaying the publication of the text. Hence, such a unanimous depictions of the state as something positive represents the comprise that Kant had to make in order to get the text published
Additionally, in the beginning of the text Kant mentions in an aside that censorship within the university maybe permissible. However, he does not elaborate in great length on in which circumstances such conduct may or may not be viable.
In essence, there seem to be TWO different causal mechanisms that are being inferred within the argument that Kant is developing.
The first one relates to the effect of the university upon the EXTERNAL world/society, and could be regarded as “research impact”.
Here, Kant makes the claim that the lower faculty of philosophy needs to have primacy over the higher faculties (law, medicine and theology) as the general populous cannot distinguish between genuine knowledge claims and that of charlatans.
Hence, only by having a check on truth and as the highest goal of the university can the public trust in the knowledge claims that are being put forward.
The second one relates to the INTERNAL workings of the university
Kant makes the claim that internal power disputes cannot be arbitrated by an appeal to external utility or authority, as such instances would be coercive and hence blemish the truth of the matter
Hence, the philosophy faculty needs to reign supreme, in how knowledge claims are arbitrated. This means not that that their can’t be any hierarchies, but rather that the establishment of the hierarchy needs to be made on consensual and non-coercive means in order to generate trust in the knowledge claims put forth.
Presumably, Kant’ would not be surprised by the struggles and problems of the contemporary university, as they very much mirror his own problem formulation. Albeit that the manifestation of the different actors may have changed.
Likewise, his prescription of what the solution would be would also presumably be similar, as the prophesies that the primacy of the lower philosophy faculty is a never-ending struggle that can never seize to be an issue
One issue that might be potentially new, is the professionalization of university management. Where increasingly the university no longer draws its managers from its own ranks but rather these posts are filled by professionals in their own right.
Such individuals, if they are not also scholars, might not be aware of all the nuances and complexities involved in the arbitration of intellectual disagreement.
