14 Higher Education Reading Group
Whewell, William, On the principles of English university education, 1838, Ch. 3 “On Discipline” pp. 78-134
This is an eye-opening text, to one of the most direct, justifications and rationalizations of the ENGLISH university system. He states that: “The Germans consider “Academic Freedom" as one of the main principles of their universities ; but this has never been the system of English Universities.” (p. 123). According to him, “cheerful obedience” (p. 84), is at the core of the Anglo-Saxon national character (and in connection the success of the British Empire).
To Whewell, the university is not a mere marketplace of information but a "portal" (p. 114) to wider society. It is a institutions that transforms individuals, and hence a sacred vessel designed to transmit the permanent moral and intellectual norms of past generations to the future. There is a profound, even beautiful, intentionality in his emphasis on stability. In general, it can be said that his sentiment could be summarized into a analogy that recognizes it is far easier to burn a library than to build one; thus, the university’s role is to "connect ages" (p. 131) by anchoring the impetuous spirit of youth in the "salubrious draughts" (p. 134) of established tradition.
However, this noble goal of intergenerational transmission is achieved through a rigorous and nearly infallible system of discipline. Whewell rejects algorithmic or detached punishment in favor of an escalatory model rooted in "personal intercourse" (p. 93). Every minor infraction, from missing Chapel to neglecting academic dress, is viewed as a revelation of character. Because the system assumes that "the best regulated minds" (p. 110) give the most cheerful obedience, any sign of resistance is moralized as a lack of character. Herein lies a danger: by equating expertise with obedience, the system risks silencing the very free and fervent thought it claims to nourish.
This structural rigidity creates what we could call a Pharisee problem. As pointed out, that the rules are being worshiped for the sake of the rules. He is fine with this, because according to him: “[institutions] can compel forms only, this very existence of forms, according to the common laws of human habit, preserves and supports the substance.” (p. 108). However, when the forms are corrupted Whewell does not suggest reform, but rather penitence or the sharp sword of expulsion. He justifies this as "sacrificing one to many" (p. 90) , a move that protects the collective, but leaves it susceptible to character assassination and selective enforcement by those who know how to manipulate the frames of authority.
In praxis, such a stance creates an institutional protection, a Omertà of sorts. The Fellows who govern the college are bound by an oath of friendly silence, swearing to repel and denounce any words that might bring "evil fame" to the institution (p. 117). Looked at unfavorably, this creates a "chumocracy" at the top, where people who are already in power, use the mechanisms of the university to justify why they should be in power, punishing and silencing everyone who does not agree. If that does not work to create agreement, then character assassination and expulsion are acceptable steps.
In conclusion, while one can appreciate Whewell’s gratitude for the venerable cloisters that preserve our cultural heritage, the danger is that such reverence can become the very shield corruption hide behind. The pride behind “teaching the nations how to live” (p. 132), needs to be fettered with genuine humility from within. Otherwise, a supposed stable institution only lasts if the current political consensus lasts.
