Public Service and Higher Education 2009

President Durden's remarks
February 23, 2009 

President William G. Durden '71 opened the Feb. 23, 2009 public-service symposium, What's Wrong with Public Service? A Challenge for Higher Education, with the following speech, in which he addressed the need for public servants in America and called for higher-education instutions to help shape the next generation of public-service leaders.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: A Time to Recommit
Part 3: The Value of the Broad Liberal Education: A Historic View
Part 4: Broadening Avenues to Public Service
Part 5: A Call to Action

 Introduction

Good morning and welcome to Dickinson College. We are honored to be hosting this important conference with the University of Maine. I extend a special welcome to my co-panelists: President Kennedy of the University of Maine and Mark Gearan, president of Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

We are particularly indebted to Dan and Betty Churchill for not only suggesting the conference, but also supporting it and being with us today. Betty is a graduate of Dickinson and Dan is a graduate of the University of Maine. Both have enjoyed long careers in public service. Through their professional commitments, they have first-hand knowledge of the importance of public service to our nation’s future, not to mention the lifetime of personal satisfaction such careers afford those who choose to pursue them. I have no doubt that their perspectives and those of others who have followed similar career paths will add great value to our discussions today.

It is, I believe, especially appropriate that we gather today at Dickinson to discuss the future of public service. As many of you know, the College was founded at the close of the American Revolution by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, for the highest purpose imaginable—to prepare the engaged citizens and leaders who would ensure the success of the new democracy. Rush knew that our new democratic government would demand the active participation of an educated citizenry. For that reason, he established Dickinson College, then on the edge of the western frontier, to provide a “useful” liberal arts education to enable its students to be informed participants in the "new government.”

It is also especially appropriate that we convene this conference just a few short weeks after the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Public service at the community level has, of course, been a defining characteristic of President Obama’s career, and his commitment to increase opportunities for public service was a central theme during his campaign. Just as Benjamin Rush recognized that active, engaged citizens were essential to American democracy at its outset, President Obama now asks that “we answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century.” In light of the extraordinary needs many of our nation’s citizens currently face during this turbulent economic time, our topic today assumes a greater sense of urgency.

 Part 2: A Time to Recommit

We have titled this conference “What is Wrong with Public Service?: A Challenge for Higher Education.” This title puts forth two critical issues I believe we need to address. The first, of course, is the notion that public service in its current state is seriously broken (by the way, what isn’t broken—our economy, the auto industry, the housing industry, the banking industry, the lending industry, healthcare and, as you shall soon hear, higher education) . There is considerable evidence—anecdotal and otherwise—to suggest that careers in public service—despite the rush of enthusiasm during the last election—are not particularly attractive to young people as a career, that the best and the brightest are drawn to other professions and areas of interest, and that many are not maximizing opportunities that can leverage private sector experience for the public good.


The second notion is that higher education has a central role to play in encouraging students to pursue avenues of public service. With the legacy of Benjamin Rush looming large above us—not to mention his statue which is in front of this building—I wholeheartedly agree that our nation’s colleges and universities—both public and private—have a continuing responsibility to educate students about the importance of active citizenship and to give them the opportunity to engage meaningfully in a range of service activities that will give them the foundation for a lifelong commitment.

A quick perusal of many colleges and university catalogues and Web sites certainly conveys the impression that preparation for active citizenship is an important priority at these institutions. The language used by these schools is similar, if not interchangeable. I suggest, however, that this defining objective is not explicitly ingrained in the curricular and co-curricular activities at these institutions and, equally important, that most colleges and universities are not held accountable for graduating active participants in democracy.

I assert that it is time for colleges and universities to recommit to the original intention of a distinctively American education. The unifying principle for American education at its origins after the American Revolution was preparation for democracy—to prepare young people through a liberal education to participate in an idea far bigger than them. There was a direct and necessary link between education and democracy. The academic areas of study were "useful" only in the extent to which they yielded citizens who lived and worked to advance a democratic polity. There was no sympathy for an education that was self-indulgent, that celebrated learning for learning’s sake, or that just concentrated on a single vocational subject without breath of study. That was the type of education found in Europe and it was judged "monkish" and elite. But America had fought hard to free itself from European practices, and there was a great deal of work for Americans to do in the wider world. There was a nation to build and a government to perfect, and it was towards these noble ends that all education was to be directed and held accountable.

Strengthening the democracy in its broadest sense was to be the goal of every student regardless of his course of study (I say “his” in the 18th century context). Dr. Rush’s descriptions of Dickinson’s curriculum—like Thomas Jefferson’s of that of the University of Virginia—offered explicit commentary on how individual courses would contribute to a student’s active involvement in democracy. American “pragmatism” showed its early beginnings. This was an "activist" notion of liberal education. Every course could be justified as “useful” for participating in and perfecting the new government. The accountability for a distinctively American education was, again, not solely located in the competence to which students mastered a particular academic subject, but rather, the degree to which their course of study permitted them to be active citizens.

To be candid, we have accountability and assessment all wrong in our schools and in undergraduate education. We have lost our way. Our historic and enduring mission is to educate citizens who will participate in an informed way in our form of government. It is that for which we should be held accountable. Basic literacies—verbal, scientific, numerical—should be established and assessed early in education—in our elementary and junior high education—and then attention should be turned to other areas of liberal study that build on these literacies and advance those critical thinking, social and organizational knowledge and skills (in and out of the classroom) necessary for engaged citizenship.

 Part 3: "We, as a nation, have lost our way."

Sadly, I am afraid that we, as a nation, and we, as educators, have lost this sense of dedication to a common goal—to our inheritance. We have never as a sector "revolted" against England. We have yet to live the Revolution. Our common purpose in education is, however, a rich and deeply ingrained part of our historic legacy that can be revived and refashioned for the contemporary world. Indeed, there are a number of new initiatives on the horizon that ask us to reconsider this historic mandate and for those, we are thankful.

One of these initiatives directly traces its origins to our founding fathers. The proponents of a new national public service academy assert that they are returning to an idea advocated by President George Washington to create a national university to prepare young people for citizenship in the new democracy. The intentions of those leading the effort to establish a U.S. Public Service Academy in our own time are admirable and vital to the discussion. A leader of this movement is with us this morning and will participate in the next panel discussion and my co-panelist, President Mark Gearan, supports this concept. I have no doubt their proposal will continue to spark much-needed debate about and interest in careers in public service.

I must, however, respectfully disagree with the concept of a dedicated public service academy, and I hope we have some lively debate about this proposition and others today.

A recent University of Virginia thesis focusing on Washington’s proposal for national education makes it clear that our first president felt strongly that a broad liberal education would create good citizens and thereby contribute to the health and prosperity of the new republic. Writing at a time when there were but a handful of colleges and universities in the new nation—and many of them established along the European rather than emerging American model—Washington felt it was important to provide an opportunity for young people to be schooled in an extensive liberal education that also acquainted them with the principles of law and republican government. Those educated in this fashion were then expected to spread their knowledge throughout the country by returning to their homes and local communities where there were no colleges or universities. In Washington’s time—unlike ours today--there was a real question as to whether the new nation would even survive given the number of people still sympathetic to England and its monarchic form of government. Washington’s focus was not so much about preparing young people for specific careers in government as he was about educating them for a frame of mind—a democratic republican government disposition—that they would then disseminate in all quarters of the new and very fragile nation to advance its durability. Again, from at least one central location—a national university—they would spread the public understanding of law and republican government in locations where no universities existed.

Washington was not the only founding father to propose a national university in the absence of universities throughout the nation in the late 18th century. It may come as little surprise to learn that it was actually our Dr. Benjamin Rush who first proposed in written form a national university explicitly to train public servants. Rush’s university, however, was to focus only on graduate level studies that would offer advanced training to those who would serve in the highest positions. Rush was as passionate about the benefits of a liberal education as President Washington. In Rush’s model, however, this broad education for a democratic frame of mind would occur at a network of feeder undergraduate colleges—Dickinson being one—that would lay the foundation for specialized advanced study and for a graduates engagement in all sorts of professions germane for the new polity—law, medicine, teaching, the ministry and the military. Rush went so far as to suggest that those serving in the most responsible stations—including members of Congress—should be required to receive this specialized graduate training. No degree from a specific institution, no public service allowed—not particularly democratic in our current understanding!

Again, the idea of a national university along either Washington’s or Rush’s model may have made sense in the late 18th century when relatively few colleges and universities existed in our country. But does it make sense in the 21st century when we already have in place a vast network of institutions throughout the country offering undergraduate and graduate programs that encourage both a broad training in the liberal arts and sciences and specialized advanced training in disciplines directly related to government and public service? Are we not ignoring a unique and valuable asset in this vast network of colleges and universities, each with historic and valuable linkages to its own community? Can we justify the creation of a totally new institution of higher learning for just a few hundred students in an era of severely limited economic resources? Additionally, can we afford within the notion of democracy an “elite” specially educated to govern. Unlike our military academies where the ultimate field of service places graduates under military law and limits privileges of citizenship, these non-military servants would remain always subject solely to civilian law like the rest of the population. Is not separately educated governing elite ultimately a regression to the very undemocratic notions this country fought against in the American Revolution? Isn’t the notion of access severely compromised? And while there might be skills we should teach nearly all students going into public service (statistical competence among them), skill in “governing” is not necessarily something you can embed within a person merely by a degree in government. Indeed, we learn perhaps as much or even more about ourselves and governing from reading The Peloponnesian War as we ever would from reading the Public Administration Review.

Do we, in short, need to establish a brand new university to fulfill the responsibility to which existing colleges and universities, even our nation's schools, should recommit and be held accountable—the commitment to prepare students for engaged lives of citizenship and leadership in the service of society? I fear that creating a public service academy will absolve institutions of higher education—not to mention K-12 schools—from this central responsibility precisely at a time when they should be reexamining it within the context of a 21st century global society.

 Part 4: Broadening the avenues

Do we, in short, need to establish a brand new university to fulfill the responsibility to which existing colleges and universities, even our nation's schools, should recommit and be held accountable—the commitment to prepare students for engaged lives of citizenship and leadership in the service of society? I fear that creating a public service academy will absolve institutions of higher education—not to mention K-12 schools—from this central responsibility precisely at a time when they should be reexamining it within the context of a 21st century global society.

I would argue that we should be broadening awareness of the many avenues to public service and the diverse set of knowledge skills needed by a citizen who would serve. The call to public service comes in many forms. For some, it will be a lifelong career commitment. For others, it takes the form of part-time or volunteer service. For yet others, it occurs intermittently throughout one’s professional life as individuals move seamlessly, and sometimes simultaneously, between the public and private spheres. It is the ability to serve without the limitation of initial specialized training--if that can be so broadly identified—that in part marks the magic of the grand American experiment in both education and participation in democracy.

Narrowly defining public service and ascribing a specific course of training runs the risk of depriving our nation of its most valuable assets. Establishing what is tantamount to “preferred path” to public service flies in the face of one of our democracy’s most cherished tenets—that a broadly educated citizenry is essential to our nation’s ultimate success and that effective leaders emerge from all walks of life and from every corner of our country.

This was Washington’s aspiration. It is, in fact, broad access that generates enthusiasm for service. Specialized training for governing and public service can be acquired at the many graduate and professional schools now existing, but only after a more pervasive appreciation for democracy is again engrained in our public though our schools and undergraduate colleges and universities. We have our work to do in higher education to reassert this ambition and the accountability that must accompany it.

 Part 5: A Call to Action

The question of how to do a better job of encouraging young people to enter careers and paths of public service is a valid and urgent one. As college and university presidents, we must examine carefully our curricula at both the undergraduate and graduate levels so that we are giving every student the opportunity to prepare for a life of public service. We must revisit our service and volunteer co-curricular offerings to ensure that our students understand the broader policy context within which they participate in these activities and the responsibility they have to help find permanent solutions to society’s most enduring and nettlesome problems—in short, we must re-imagine Student and Residential Life on America’s campuses. We must find more efficient and less costly ways to collaborate with one another, to offer scholarships for students interested in public service careers, and to develop long-term assessment strategies to fine tune our programs so that we can provide the necessary work force for diverse areas of public service.


We would do well to engage initiatives such as AAC&U’s Bringing Theory to Practice and Greater Expectations that confront civic engagement and democracy in education head-on. We must direct our accountability away from mere assessment of academic subjects to the performance of our graduates over a lifetime in voting, serving on community boards, speaking out about issues that matter, serving in the military or alternative service venues such as Teach for America, the Peace Corps and its domestic equivalents. We must attract students to government employment beyond the most popular departments such as State, CIA, the FBI to now include Commerce, the IRS, Transportation, Management and Budget, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, etc. We must consider seriously such proposals before Congress to support the likes of Roosevelt Fellowships that would reward outstanding undergraduate students with a desire for advanced study in mission-critical areas of study by supporting them in graduate or professional school in return for a specific number of years of government service. Should we as the Academy even more radically call for major structural changes in the civil service such as getting rid of the General Schedule, seniority steps, unions, that might make employment is this sector more appealing to bright, idealistic young people, We must, in other words, ensure that we are fulfilling our individual and collective missions to prepare educated citizens and public leaders in the most pervasive manner possible.

As President Obama put it in his speech on public service:

There is a lesson to be learned from generations who have served…It’s the lesson that in America, each of us is free to seek our own dreams, but we must also serve a common purpose, a higher purpose. When you choose to serve—whether it’s your nation, your community or simply your neighbor—you are connected to that fundamental ideal that we want Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans.



I thank all of you for taking the time to join us today for this important discussion. This daylong conversation must be but one piece of a continuing larger dialogue to encourage us all to recommit to the higher common purpose that binds us together as a nation, that demands the active participation of every citizen and that redirects and focuses more acutely our many efforts for accountability in higher education. Might this conference and its call to public service among America’s youth energize our colleges and universities to assert a new pragmatism to accomplish for our nation what has historically eluded us?