‘The power that we hold’: panelist speak on challenges facing higher education – The Daily Texan

Report on the Future of Higher Education and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A panel at the Texas Tribune Festival addressed critical threats to the survival of higher education, with implications directly impacting the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The discussion highlighted how government actions, public perception, and internal complacency challenge the sector’s ability to deliver on its commitments to SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Challenges to SDG 4: Quality, Inclusivity, and Autonomy in Education

Panelists identified several federal actions that threaten the core tenets of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education. These actions risk undermining the institutional autonomy necessary for academic freedom and research.

• Government Overreach: A “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” sent to universities was cited as an example of government attempting to control institutional priorities, which conflicts with the academic freedom essential for quality education. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, argued that government should not control who teaches, who attends, what is taught, or what research is conducted.
• Barriers to Inclusive Education: The detention of international students was noted as a direct impediment to Target 4.B, which calls for expanding higher education scholarships for students in developing countries to study abroad.
• Systemic Threats: Proposals to dismantle the Department of Education represent a fundamental challenge to the national infrastructure supporting quality and equitable education for all.

The Role of Higher Education in Upholding SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The discussion underscored the critical function of higher education in fostering the informed and engaged citizenry required for SDG 16. Panelists argued that threats to universities are threats to the democratic institutions they support.

1. Educating for Democracy: Danielle Holley, president of Mount Holyoke College, described higher education as a “tent pole institution” for ensuring an educated populace capable of improving democratic institutions and holding leaders accountable, a key component of SDG 16.
2. A Call for Institutional Courage: John King Jr., chancellor of the State University of New York, criticized an “embarrassing lack of courage” from higher education leaders in response to government actions, stating that their inaction allows dangerous threats to democracy to grow.
3. The Power of Engagement: Ruth Simmons of Rice University highlighted a lack of engagement and organization on campuses, urging students and faculty to recognize and utilize their power to protect the university’s role as a pillar of a just and peaceful society.

Addressing Public Perception to Advance SDG 10 and SDG 17

The panel concluded that a significant disconnect between higher education institutions and the public undermines progress toward reducing inequalities (SDG 10) and building effective partnerships (SDG 17).

• Perceptions of Elitism and Unaffordability: Danielle Holley noted that higher education is often associated with unaffordability and elitism, creating barriers that conflict with the goal of reducing inequalities and ensuring equal opportunity.
• Failure in Public Partnership: Ruth Simmons attributed universities’ vulnerability to their failure to bring the public closer to their work. She called for institutions to communicate their purpose and value in accessible, human terms, thereby fostering the public trust and partnerships (SDG 17) needed for their survival and societal contribution.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several issues within the higher education sector that connect to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the most central SDG, as the entire article revolves around the survival, quality, accessibility, and purpose of higher education. The discussion covers threats to academic freedom, affordability, and the fundamental role of universities in society.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article explicitly links higher education to the health of democratic systems. Panelists argue that universities are crucial for creating an “educated populace that is able to then think about our democratic institutions, improve them, change them, hold our office leaders to account.” The debate over government interference versus institutional autonomy directly relates to the goal of building effective and accountable institutions.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The mention of higher education being associated with “unaffordability” and “elitism” points directly to SDG 10. These issues create barriers to access, perpetuating and widening inequalities by limiting opportunities for individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific problems and solutions discussed, the following SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
   • Explanation: The article directly addresses this target when panelist Danielle Holley points out that “unaffordability” is a major deficiency in higher education. This concern implies that access to university is not equal or affordable for all, which is the core focus of Target 4.3.
2. Target 4.7: Ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity…
   • Explanation: The article emphasizes the role of higher education in fostering an “educated populace” capable of engaging with and strengthening “democratic institutions.” This aligns with Target 4.7’s goal of educating for global citizenship and promoting the values necessary for a functioning democracy.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Explanation: The concern raised by Ted Mitchell about government entities attempting to “control who teaches, who goes to college, what is taught and what research questions are asked” is a defense of universities as autonomous and effective institutions. The article frames government overreach as a threat to the integrity and effectiveness of higher education institutions, which is a key aspect of Target 16.6.
4. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…
   • Explanation: The characterization of higher education as being associated with “elitism” directly relates to this target. Elitism suggests that opportunities are not equal and that the system may favor certain groups, leading to inequalities of outcome. Addressing this perception is crucial for achieving the goal of equal opportunity.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article is qualitative and does not mention specific statistical indicators. However, it implies several areas where measurement would be necessary to track progress:

• Implied Indicator for Target 4.3 (Affordability): The discussion of “unaffordability” implies the need for indicators such as the net cost of attendance for tertiary education, levels of student loan debt, and the percentage of household income required to pay for university.
• Implied Indicator for Target 4.7 (Education for Citizenship): The goal of creating an “educated populace” that can “hold our office leaders to account” suggests indicators related to civic engagement. Progress could be measured by the level of civic participation (e.g., voting rates, community involvement) among university graduates or the extent to which university curricula incorporate education on democratic principles and civic responsibility.
• Implied Indicator for Target 16.6 (Institutional Autonomy): The debate over government control implies the need for an indicator to measure institutional freedom. This could be an index of academic freedom that assesses the degree to which universities can operate without undue government interference in curriculum, research, and admissions.
• Implied Indicator for Target 10.3 (Equal Opportunity): The concern about “elitism” points to the need for indicators that measure equity in access. Progress could be tracked by analyzing the enrollment and graduation rates in tertiary education broken down by socioeconomic status, race, and geographic location.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thedailytexan.com