are universities a public good?

Guest blogger Clare Carr on a debate held today at De Montfort University (in the Hugh Aston Building, photo above) that I was interested in but couldn't attend.

I received an e-mail about this debate from the Leicester Secular Society.  The question "Are Universities a Public Good?" was raised during a recent BBC4 programme, part of the Justice Season, in which Michael Sandel, a Harvard Professor led a discussion on "Fairness and the Big Society".  Having watched the programme, the idea of taking part in the DMU debate was very appealing.

The publicity for the event stated that "we are keen for individuals and organisations from across the city of Leicester to share their views about how higher education could help to shape the wider moral and ethical agenda.  Touching on values, faith, local partnerships and social responsibility, we are keen for you to get involved in the discussion and share your views on what De Montfort University could and should be doing in society."

The public debate, was the third in a series of debates taking place on the same day - the other two being for students and for staff.  It opened with a conversation between the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens (a DMU Governor) and Professor Dominic Shellard (DMU's Vice-Chancellor).  The floor was then open to members of the audience to make comments and raise questions and issues.  It was acknowledged early in the debate, that Humanists and people of no faith had as much to contribute to discussions about the values and ethics of university education as members of faith groups.  The questions that I found most interesting were:

·         What is a university for?

·         Is a degree a private or a public asset?

·         How can universities contribute to our ability to find sustainable ways of living?

·         How can we create spaces for listening, thinking and discussing issues where everyone is included?

The event overran by half an hour as there was such enthusiasm to continue the discussion.

Members of the audience were invited to note down their ideas on a feedback sheet.  A team of DMU students attended all three debates and will be writing a report for the Board of Governors.  The students will reflect on the issues raised during the debates and the ideas submitted by the audience.

Today's event was one element of a longer process.  I shall be keeping my eye on the university website to see how the process unfolds.

Mindfulness & Morality 3: Hindu Perspective

I'm not able to attend the session on Mindfulness and Morality this evening as I'm at County Hall doing the "Religion and Media" presentation. This is the first of the "faith specific" sessions, on Hinduism. Kevin Commons has taken notes, which I reproduce here, just as he has sent them. That makes Kevin my first guest blogger!

There was a total of 19 people plus Ramesh Majithia (facilitator). Ramesh's introductory talk set out the following five pillars of Hindu ethics:

1. Reverence for self (the self is the image of the Divine)
2. Reverence for other (obviously, others are also the image of the Divine)
3. Reverence for the animal kingdom (God's creation)
4. Reverence for the plant kingdom
5. Reverence for the material kingdom

These obviously have implications for the environment and the ecology of the planet. He then described the 4 ashrams as life stage that guide moral behaviour. These are:

• age 0 to 25 where the focus is study and learning
• 25 to 50 where the focus is family life
• 50 to 70 where the individual starts to let go of attachments
• 70+ where the individual lets go of everything and becomes a sanyasin (homeless person)

He explored a few quotations from the Gita and Upanishads and told the story of Saint Jalaram, which provided the basis for his discussion item that had food and family life as its focus.

Raj's behaviour

Raj is 13 and is the only son. Rings mum one day from school that he will be late home and that they eat at the usual time of 6.00 p.m. Dad has a medical condition and has to eat at regular times. Raj arrives at 7.00 p.m. Dad had gone to rest upstairs. Mum has been waiting to eat with son. As son is warming up the food Raj says he wanted to eat pizza. Mum cannot persuade the son otherwise. Raj get the pizza out of the freezer and puts it in the microwave. the next thing is he sits on the sofa, switches on the TV to watch "Neighbours" and starts eating the pizza. Mum is stunned.

This story provoked a lot of discussion but certainly brought home the significance of family activities and the place of food within these.  Issues of Raj's lack of mindfulness of his mother and father's needs and the lack of respect for the food that seemed about to be wasted were well rehearsed.  However, Raj's mother's behaviour was also pointed out.  Why did she not eat with her husband?  Why wait for Raj since he had chosen to break the family routine.  One view suggested that this was Raj's mother's dilemma, requiring her to ask why Raj behaved as he did in a way that would seek to find out how he was seeing the world, rather than castigating him for his unacceptable behaviour.

If the key point was lack of respect for authority and, in a more general sense, the law, then the level of moral judgement in Kohlberg's terms seems to be at stage 4, the higher of the two levels of conventional thinking.