Philosophy is, in many ways, a study of justifications. Regardless of whether a student is studying epistemology, logic, ethics, metaphysics, or any other philosophical sub-discipline, they will be taught that the correct response to an assertion of a particular conclusion is to reply, “explain why that is so”. It is a practice that forms the heart of the Western philosophical tradition, passed down from the Ancient Greek figure who is most often honoured as its founder: Socrates. He found that when powerful members of the Athenian state were faced with simple (and perhaps irritating) questioning, the justifications for their beliefs and decisions crumbled. In other words, the reasons they thought they had for acting as they did turned out to be no good reasons at all.
It is therefore incredibly ironic that the University of Sydney is now making decisions regarding its teaching of philosophy that are based on a justification that would not withstand even a minute of Socratic questioning. As Honi Soit reported on May 27, the University has recently proposed that no less than 25 philosophy courses be either merged into one of 6 new units (all of which appear to solely consist of a ‘frankensteining’ of the remains of previous courses) or cut entirely. The document displayed in the cover photo of that article states that the course cuts are motivated by a need to comply with “curriculum sustainability principles.”
This rationale was then corroborated by a University spokesperson in that same article, who stated that, “Philosophy staff worked on a new curriculum structure to align with these principles while ensuring a spread of units to reflect the range of subject areas in the discipline. Student demand was one of many factors informing the discipline’s approach in reconsidering its curriculum.” There’s just one not-so-insignificant problem with this “curriculum sustainability informed by student demand” justification: USYD philosophy, due to significant student demand for many of the courses being cut, is already incredibly profitable and therefore sustainable in its current form.
It is essential that this point be made as clearly as possible. The units being cut/merged are not fringe courses centred on obscure, esoteric topics that only appeal to a select few students. Rather, they are incredibly popular courses that receive significant enrolment numbers well above the level required for the University to receive a profitable return on its investment. They are also well-liked by students and consistently receive positive feedback in unit of study surveys.
The University’s response in the Honi article mentioned above seems as though it is attempting to establish a narrative where its administrators are being forced to make cuts in order for the philosophy curriculum to be sustainable, and students are simply unhappy with any changes being made to the status quo. The realities of the situation, however, show that this narrative must be outright rejected. If philosophy’s diverse course offering is consistently providing good financial return, and there is strong demand for its various units, why does sustainability require that many of those units be axed? The short answer is that it doesn’t.
Why then, one might ask, is the University doing this? Unfortunately, the closed-doors approach of the administration means that nothing can be offered in answer to that question but speculation. The most likely theory is probably that the University is uncritically following a standardised algorithm. Administrators may have devised some ‘magic formula’ for maximising profits over the long-term that is now being blindly applied to different departments and schools without further thought. What else could possibly explain its recent nonsensical treatment of philosophy?
It would surely be best for everyone in the University of Sydney community if that last question were not left as a rhetorical one. Instead, the University should explain exactly why these changes are being made. Their previous justification of sustainability is clearly indefensible. It is time for the next stage of the Socratic dialogue, in which either a second, more robust reason will be provided, or the original decision to cut courses will be admitted as a blunder.
