The University as Corporation, Collegium, and Community

Introduction

The university is unique among institutionalized entities. Distinct from the corporation, the government agency, or the religious congregation, the university represents a convergence of ideas, knowledge, imagination, reasoning, and thinking. Where many of the institutions that comprise our society and culture are simple and definable in nature, the university continues to elude clear definition. This is because of its multi-dimensionality, a quality that drives the focus of Downey's (2000) discussion.

According to Downey (2000), efforts at defining the university have often been confounded by the ambition of scholars to pigeonhole it into a single role. Whether this role is understood as a place of education, a site for the receipt of professional credentials, or a training context for one's profession, any of these ways of understanding the university falls short of capturing its nuance, complexity, and socio-cultural importance. It is thus that Downey (2000) attempts to correct these failures of definition by promoting a multi-dimensional lens for evaluating the university. Downey (2000) identifies these dimensions as corporation, collegium, and community, making the case that these are the fundamental aspects of the institution which distinguish it from all other areas of public life. Our discussion deconstructs Downey's (2000) claims with the interest of better understanding the role of the modern university.

Corporation, Collegium, and Community

Downey's (2000) discussion initiates from the understanding that scholars have frequently failed to effectively define the university because they have oversimplified its intended purpose. Given the importance of the faculty present at a university in defining its internal culture, it would be inappropriate to simply seek a student-driven definition of the university. Further, the degree to which the social and lifestyle elements of university life may be considered essential means that it is not sufficient simply to define the institution according to the interaction of faculty and student interests. It is thus that Downey (2000) offers a construct intended to underline the intersection of the features which make the university so singular. He calls this a trinity of concurrent and individually important functions.

In order to better understand this claim, Downey (2000) offers a breakdown of the implications of each of the three dimensions. He indicates that every university inherently adheres to some of the characteristics of a corporation — specifically, the need for self-perpetuation, the proper handling of resources, the maintenance of regulatory affairs, and the appointment of internal leadership structures, to name just a few core qualities. Downey (2000) indicates that the university as a corporation reflects the necessary structural arrangements that allow a corporation to function according to its goals and capabilities, regardless of popular sentiment. To this end, Downey (2000) reminds us that corporations "have a hierarchical structure, with authority vested in a corporate board and delegated to designated officers. Because legal compliance across a range of accountabilities is required of it, the university as a corporation cannot afford to operate as a consensual community; it needs administrative levers to act, and its structure provides them." (p. 306)

According to this view, the human elements of the university must be treated, at least to an extent, as analogous to the personnel roles that comprise a corporation. Here, administrators are akin to officers, professors are identified as employees, and students are treated as clients. This is a necessary way of understanding the university because its continuity relies heavily on its adherence to such corporate priorities as ethical codification, customer service, performance review, quality assurance, and the achievement of certain financial benchmarks. As Downey (2000) demonstrates, these features are crucial as the university supports its goals of scholarship, research, and accreditation by efficiently and formally structuring itself to distribute resources, maintain effective employment, and promote its identity to prospective students.

In other words, many of the practical aims of the university's survival and functionality depend on this corporate modality. These practical features must be supplemented, Downey (2000) reports, by a sound philosophical grounding. In most universities, this philosophical grounding is often captured by the phrase academic freedom. This, Downey (2000) tells us, is at the very root of the second modality of the university-defining trinity: collegium. According to the present discussion, this is the broad and determinant role played by the collective of professors and academics in establishing the atmosphere and identity of a school. According to Downey (2000), "the collegium is the complex network of assumptions, traditions, protocols, relations, and structures within the university which permit the professoriate to control and conduct the academic affairs of the institution, determining, among other things, who shall be admitted, who shall teach and research, what shall be taught and researched, and what standards shall be set for which rewards." (p. 306)

This, our research indicates, is an essential feature of the university that allows its instructors and scholars to function according to their own respective understanding of the search for truth. Downey (2000) indicates that this predicates both the individual and collective freedom for professors to challenge their students, to promote research goals, to publish literature, and to engage forms of pedagogy that are based on the ongoing insights and innovations of the faculty.

Contrary to many other walks of institutional life, Downey (2000) sees this structure as conferring a distinct level of both autonomy — allowing individual instructors to take liberties with their instructional approach — and of collaborative strength, providing educators with a forum through which to affirm university policy and identity. On this point, Downey (2000) goes so far as to compare the faculty of a university to something of a "priesthood," choosing this analogy for the faith and power essentially invested in a school's faculty. Ultimately, the role that this tier of personnel serves — both in contact with students and independently within the framework of the university — will be a key feature by which the institution is recognized as a whole.

In this way, Downey (2000) argues, there is a certain democratic order that persists within the faculty that enables all personnel to contribute findings, experiences, opinions, and arguments to discussions on curriculum, policy, and pedagogy. Downey's (2000) trinity theory promotes the idea that the collegium is the dimension of the university most likely to serve as an agent of social change, a role that is often of catalyzing importance within an institution of truth and learning. Here, Downey (2000) argues that "it is through this time-intensive process that the consensus is formed which is so essential to concerted action. At the same time, it is also the process which often seems to those outside the university, not to say many within, to inhibit unreasonably institutional responsiveness to social change. When under pressure to respond with dispatch, most universities of course find ways of doing so, especially when institutional self-interest is involved." (p. 307) These "ways of doing so" are, Downey (2000) reports, generally channeled through the efforts, actions, and interests of a university's faculty. By comprising the dimension of the university trinity that is most directly understood according to its human units — while simultaneously reflecting institutional principles in its collective impact on policy — the professoriate has the capacity to respond most intuitively to external changes in culture and society, even where this may seem to contrast longstanding university policy or identity.

With respect to its identity, a university will often be perceived by its students according to the community thereby formed. It is thus that community forms the third of Downey's (2000) modalities. This dimension of the university trinity is necessary to our understanding of the lifestyle, geographical layout, and environmental norms that constitute the college experience. As Downey (2000) observes, there is perhaps no other institution which so accurately and credibly replicates the community experience as does a university. Downey (2000) points out that the collegiate "institution has such an impressive range of communal attributes. There is first the physical infrastructure of land, buildings, roads, sewers, communication and transportation systems, and cultural and athletic facilities. There is as well the infrastructure of a different sort; this is the impressive range of services provided to citizens — personal, professional, social, recreational, and of course educational." (p. 307)

This, Downey (2000) indicates, is fleshed out by an inherent diversity — both within the population that has arrived at the school from any number of demographic cross-sections and within the array of professional and scholarly opportunities represented in its courses, clubs, electives, events, activities, and specialized avenues of professional development. In this sense, the university is not just a replicated community but also a highly contrived idealization of such a community, where all members are given equal opportunity to study in their area of interest, to congregate in their preferred social landscape, and to engage their own various opportunities. Downey (2000) points out that this type of role selection is not necessarily an accurate foreshadowing of what one can expect once beyond the protective confines of the university — and it is to this end that the university is so distinct in the way it provides a community most hospitable to intellectual and emotional growth.

Conclusion

This seems an appropriate point upon which to resolve our discussion. For Downey (2000), the centerpiece of the discussion seems to be a need for universities to achieve greater balance in all things. This is delineated as a balance between the dimensions or modalities of corporation, collegium, and community. Indeed, Downey (2000) goes to compelling lengths to demonstrate the manner in which these should be interdependent and cooperative within the scope of a university.

But the article goes further to suggest that there is an inherent balance required of the university as a concept and as an idea — one that must inform its practice, policy, and philosophy. The article contends that "there will always be some tension between the university's role as critic of society and its role as society's servant." (p. 310) However, at the crux of Downey's (2000) discussion seems to be the view that this is not a catastrophic dilemma. Indeed, with the educational process centering on the quest for truth, it seems an appropriate scholarly pursuit to engage these questions about the role of the university. Even without reconciliation of these competing interests, there can be greater understanding and balance brought to them. And this is at the center of our discussion on the idea of the university. Quite unlike any other socio-cultural institution, the university is defined by its balanced exploration of ideas.

Works Cited

Downey, J. (2000). Balancing corporation, collegium, and community. Innovative Higher Education.