Jamie Herman

Exploitation pervades the higher education system. Individuals with more power within higher education tend to be advantaged in their interactions with individuals with less power. Despite thorough documentation, protest, and general condemnation, exploitative practices persist. While some scholars suggest bias and neoliberal policies are to blame for the persistence of exploitation across the higher education system, I argue persist exploitation can only be explained by attending to complex structures and systems. Drawing on insights from game theory and social theorists, this article provides a more complete account of the persistence of exploitation in higher education by focusing on structures—networks of relations between various positions, sustained by norms and practices. I suggest exploitative practices in higher education derive from bargaining interactions across power where individuals adhere to the norms embedded in higher education’s hierarchical structure for fear of potential sanction. In these interactions, individuals with less power face greater repercussions for deviating from the norm, leaving them limited options to resist exploitation. These dynamics are further complicated by the complex and dynamic systems with which higher education is intertwined. The interconnectivity of complex social systems ensures bargaining dynamics within higher education simultaneously affect and are affected by other social systems. This makes resisting exploitation difficult and disproportionately costly for individuals who experience disadvantage in multiple social systems. This article introduces insights from game theory and complexity theory to conversations about injustice in education, arguing that addressing long-standing oppression requires attention to complex structures and systems.

“Love of learning” is a phrase that appears frequently in school mission statements, among others with similar connotations Using “Love of learning” as a case, I employ comparative conceptual analysis to characterize the value underlying the phrase before reviewing the implications this holds for practice in schools that use the phrase in their mission statements. I argue “Love of learning” refers to a distinct, intrinsically valuable phenomenon that implies a particular type of learning experience. A commitment to fostering “love of learning” at school would require developing environments conducive to each student having this particular learning experience. This carries implications for practice, particularly in schools that include fostering “love of learning” in their mission statements. As a case, the conceptual analysis of “love of learning” presented here demonstrates the need to review mission statements to assess whether values conveyed therein align with institutional practices.

In their book, Conceptual Engineering in Education, editors Jane Gatley and Christian Norefalk (2024) invite audiences to consider the use of conceptual engineering to educational theorists. This edited collection introduces readers to conceptual engineering as a philosophical methodology, including how it currently is and could be used by educational theorists to evaluate the concepts central to educational theory and practice. Among philosophers generally, conceptual engineering has seen a wave of popularity and debate in the last few years with many asking what role innovation, evaluation, and amelioration should play in conceptual work (Burgess et al., 2020). Gatley and Norefalk bring that debate to education, prompting philosophers of education to explore the ways conceptual engineering could be useful, if not essential, to philosophical analysis in education.

Philosophers of education rely on a set of concepts. They refer to students, teachers, learners, schools, classrooms, etc. to theorize about what education is and ought to be. In employing these concepts, however, two ambiguities arise: variation among conceptualizations and gaps between a conceptualization of a thing and the normative valence it holds. A concept can refer both to the thing as it is and the thing as it ought to be. The author proposes a different approach that, rather than resting on a normative account of higher education institutions--about which institutional actors can reasonably disagree--looks to what is true of students descriptively: students are necessary for and to the institution such that the institution can only be for them through their own participation. This institution exists because of students; they are the institutional functional unit. The author explores this underexamined conceptualization of students as the institutional functional unit.

Contemporary events on university campuses have spotlighted the perceived conflict between free speech and safe spaces. While both values are widely acknowledged as essential, reconciling them in practice remains difficult. In this article, we argue that universities should not be viewed as singular entities but as a constellation of distinct spaces, each with its own normative context. The appropriate balance between safety and speech depends on the specific functions and values of each space. We first survey philosophical literature on campus speech and safety, noting the often-implicit acknowledgment of spatial diversity. Next, we introduce guiding questions to assist in evaluating how speech and safety should be balanced across different settings. Finally, we tour campus spaces using this framework, proposing that speech and safety exist on a continuum: some areas should support robust free expression, while others should prioritize safety and belonging.

When controversies arise, colleges and universities often find themselves in the crossfire of heated debates over institutional neutrality. Some institutions claim neutrality to distance themselves from controversy and defuse tensions surrounding sensitive issues. However, when institutions choose not to engage— whether through nonresponse or by stating they will make no response—they may inadvertently suggest that their current position is neutral, a premise many dispute (A. Ford, 2024). How should higher education institutions (HEIs) navigate the various demands they face to either act or maintain neutrality? Moreover, once institutional leaders understand these competing pressures, how should they respond? This paper has two main aims: to analyze the dynamics surrounding calls for institutional neutrality and to guide HEI decision-makers in crafting appropriate responses. In Part I, we examine HEIs amid recent campus controversies and renewed debates over institutional neutrality. Using the Spring 2024 campus encampments and protests over institutional involvement in the Israel/Gaza conflict as our primary example, we develop a framework for understanding the crossfire—situations where decision-makers face competing demands for institutional response during controversies. This framework is an analytical tool for HEI leaders and others interested in debates about institutional neutrality in higher education. Part II explores a key implication from our framework: Pluralism is most challenging during controversy. Before presenting our recommendations for responding to the crossfire, we first motivate the importance of recognizing and attending to pluralism during controversy through appeals to political liberalism and organizational theory. We then conclude by recommending a two-pronged response strategy: education and dialogue facilitation.

The launch of the powerful generative AI tool ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked a wave of fear across higher education. The tool could seemingly be used to write essays and do other work without students putting in the effort expected of them. In this paper, Jamie Herman and Henry Lara-Steidel posit a way of addressing the concerns over ChatGPT and increasingly powerful generative AI tools in the classroom by first examining what exactly, if anything, widespread AI use undermines in education. That question, they argue, is logically prior to the question of what to do or how best to embrace new advances in AI technology. They propose that ChatGPT, rather than threatening student cognitive development and effort, reveals a serious flaw in higher education's current aims and assessments: they are directed at knowledge, not understanding. Herman and Lara-Steidel review the distinction between knowledge and understanding to argue that aiming for the latter requires work and effort from students, ensuring that they develop cognitive agency. They further note that assessments in higher education are typically geared toward measuring knowledge, not understanding, and suggest that this makes them particularly vulnerable to being undermined by AI use, while assessments of understanding do not. Although AI can enhance and aid students in developing understanding, it can neither provide them with understanding nor give the appearance of understanding without student effort. After addressing some salient objections, the authors conclude by outlining avenues for designing understanding-based assessments in higher education compatible with AI tools such as ChatGPT, and they provide a framework for both understanding and responding to generative AI use in education.