Ordorika, Imanol. (2003). Power and Politics in
University
Governance: Organization and Change at the Universidad
Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico. N.Y. & London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Pp. xiii + 274
$75 ISBN 0-415-93155-6
Reviewed by James J. Harrington
Nativity Preparatory School
August 25, 2004
This book written and researched by Imanol Ordorika is
exceptional history. In spite of lofty goals, it is
especially
striking in its results! Ordorika set out to supplant the
existing model and correct the prevailing wisdom.
Through
diligent scholarship, professional insight, and lived
experience,
Ordorika succeeds in defining and documenting a new model
for
understanding the governance and history of the National
Autonomous University of Mexico [UNAM]. He also gives
intimate
details about the authoritarian nature of Mexican one-
party
government, as seen in its relationship with the national
university.
The discussion of existing literature and prevailing
theory
about the autonomy of the university underlined the
paucity of
work on this important subject for Mexico and for Latin
America
as a whole. I have shared problems caused by the limited
amount
of scholarly work on the subject, having researched and
written
about Latin American education since the early 1980s.
Daniel
Levy has been a giant in the field, often largely alone
in his
work. A few others, including Martin Carnoy with whom
Ordorika
studied at Stanford, have also provided valuable
contributions.
Ordorika produced what we all hope to see in historical
and
academic research. He expands the existing knowledge in
a way
that builds on what has come before, corrects and
supplements it,
and then supplants the old with a new version.
Ordorika challenges the view that the national
university of
Mexico was largely free of government interference and
enjoyed
the legislated/constitutional autonomy over its internal
affairs. Levy and others offered this vision, examining
the
sources available to political scientists from the
government and
the formal documents of the institution. This has been
the
prevailing wisdom since at least the 1970s.
Ordorika’s
work is a coherent, well-documented story that
fundamentally
altered the picture of the National Autonomous University
of
Mexico [UNAM] as an autonomous institution and of the
Mexican
one-party government as democratic.
The conclusions are based on research from within the
university through its constituencies. Ordorika also
documents
in depth the relationship of these groups with the
government
bureaucracy and leadership. His evidence changes the
prevailing
view, proving that the UNAM has not been autonomous
beyond the
legal documents. He shows the UNAM has in fact been
governed in
close connection to the government policies of the
Revolutionary
Party (PRI) and its authoritarian program for the
state.
The Evidence
Ordorika provides an introduction explaining the
international
history of higher education in which the UNAM developed.
The
Latin American model was drawn from the history of
southern
Europe, especially Salamanca and ultimately the
University of
Paris. A flaw here results from an incomplete
description, and
perhaps understanding, of the difference inherent in the
universities of northern Europe and North America and
those of
the south. A contrast between Paris and the universities
of
England and Germany [the latter two influencing the
universities
of the United States], would have provided a much firmer
setting
for the UNAM in the last half of the 20th century and the
current
global reality for higher education.
Power and Politics sets three interrelated
strands of
thought: first, change as a consequence of politics and
conflict
in higher education. Secondly, there is a reassessment of
the
limits of university autonomy in the relations of the
UNAM and
the Federal Government of Mexico. Finally, it describes
the
process of change within the university, as well as the
limits
and characteristics of that change.
The first chapter begins with an interesting review of
the
theoretical literature on the politics of governance and
change
in which Ordorika defines his alternative model. He
builds on
theories that credit conflict as the source of change. He
then
details the conflict(s) among the constituencies of the
UNAM as
the sources of its change(s) over time.
Ordorika downplays the importance of the legislative
and
constitutional guarantees of autonomy that provided the
basis for
existing theory [citing the work of Daniel Levy et al].
He uses
the standard definition for university autonomy:
political
[appointment and conflict resolution]; academic and
campus
[access, academic freedom, free speech]; and, financial
[tuition,
salaries, etc.]. But, he delves much deeper into
internal
relationships and the conflicts within the university
structure,
dscribing the impact of constituents' actions and
reactions
[conflict]. Lastly, Ordorika links the success and
failure of
internal conflict to the existence or absence of state
power in
support of one or another of the university's
constituencies:
administrative, faculty and staff, and students and their
unions.
This complex dynamic indicates a much different
reality than
the accepted vision. Ordorika shows that most of the
significant
change at the UNAM was driven by political conflict
and/or direct
confrontation between the University and the State, and
that the
process led to an increased dependence of the university
elite
upon the State and its power.
In the second chapter, Ordorika examines the history
of the
university [UNAM] and describes the two dominant ways of
looking
at the issues [the epistemological view]. Noting that
most
earlier work emphasized structure and organization and
its
resulting decision-making process, he sought a way to
explain the
contradictions that continually appeared. He produced a
functional analysis of the culture in addition to its
structure.
This opened the discussion to the issue of power and
politics in
higher education governance [p. 20] - that he then
applied to
the UNAM in particular. It then followed that as an
institution
of the state the university would present a further
locale for
its conflicts, including battles for equality and
democracy.
The objects of conflict over higher education are
based in
access to education as a source of social mobility.
Tensions
develop within the university over expansion,
preservation, and
control. The battle is joined by the segments of the
university
population. Ordorika himself defines ... the
geographical limits
of the study are the authoritarian state (Mexican single
party
government), the UNAM as grounded in this state that is
based on
the Mexican Revolution, and the evolution of its
authoritarian
political system. [p. 27]
Ordorika develops a fascinating organization/model for
a
developing history of politics, power and revolutionary
change.
It portrays the State as a creature of the Revolution,
and the
University as a creature of that State. In describing the
"State,
the University, and the Political System" [chapter 3],
Power and
Politics provides rich detail of the historical and
cultural
model of the Mexican State and the UNAM. Beginning with a
general
picture of its colonial antecedents and the Liberal
Century that
followed independence, Ordorika details the growth of
today's
government and the National University. As should be
expected, it
is a complex, intensely human, and relationship-based
history.
The revolutionary era that lasted from 1910 through
1932-3 was
chaotic. Yet, by 1945 the Mexican State had solidified
its
authoritarian character: uncontested Presidential power,
absence
of an electoral competition, corporatism, and a pragmatic
ideology. During this time the university was the
protector of
the middle class against the socialist aspirations of the
government and provided the primary resistance to the
socialist
education policies the government promoted. Ordorika
prevides
the evidence that the revolutionary role of the UNAM was
anti-revolutionary.
The subsequent movement of the government away from
socialism,
during World War II, and its return to Liberal ideals
produced
new opportunities for communication and partnerships
between the
liberal segments of the University and the State. The
anti-revolutionary alliance between conservatives and
liberals
within the university ended as the government established
connections with the Liberals. In 1945 a new Organic Law
restructured the university's governance.
The new reality in post-1945 Mexico saw the liberal
sector of
the university use its connection to State power to
supplant the
conservatives in university leadership - the rector and
council.
Liberals had served in the government creating
connections and
relationships. The new structure of the UNAM established
the
Rector and Council as the chief decision-making entities.
The
students, faculty, and staff were defined as more
technical
constituents with a limited voice in broader policy and
decision-making. This, Ordorika states, "mirrored the
authoritarian nature of the State, imposing an
authoritarian
regime: personalized power [Rector-Council over
decentralized
college/facultadades sectors]; lack of effective
competition
[since the council chose/elected itself], limited
participation,
and ideological ambiguity." [p. 68]
As a continuing historical development of the National
University [chapter 4], the conflict and change followed
ideological and philosophical issues that were played out
as
pragmatic goals. Populists championed social issues
regarding
access and Elitists fought for quality, efficiency, and
productivity. The goal of the restructure was to
eliminate
politics from university governance. However, even among
those
holding positions of privilege there remained differences
of
vision and opinion. These differences focused on access
[growth
of enrollment], finance, and methods of interaction with
faculty
and students.
Autonomy was certainly a constitutional and legal
fact, but
between 1945-1966 not a single Rector was appointed
without
Presidential agreement. Ordorika also explains [and
documents]
that the Student Movement was at its most - benign.
Students and
their organizations competed against each other without
unity of
purpose. The government on the other hand is depicted as
packed
with UNAM graduates and faculty and the Presidents during
this
era tended to have a high regard for the university,
supporting
its needs.
The university grew from 32,000 students and 5,372
faculty
[only about 1% of those full time] in 1954 to 58,000 and
6,000 in
1960. An elitist administration in 1960 sought to limit
expansion, disciplining student protestors harshly. By
1966 the
Populists gained control through internal university
politics and
a shift in government politics. It seemed that by this
time both
elitist and populist segments of the UNAM had strong
relationships with the government and government service
on their
resumes. The period from 1945-1968 was termed a
“Golden
Era” by Ordorika for its peace and growth through
its links
with the government. [p. 100] In describing the
relationships
with students he sated that, ... the dominant groups
within UNAM
relied heavily on the Mexican government to counter
student
assaults upon the political structure of the university.
When
this did not happen ... Rectors were not able to maintain
their
positions. [p.104]
The story moves in dramatic fashion as it approached
and
described the events around 1968 and the battle for
democratization [Chapter 5]. This was a watershed year in
Mexico
and the world. The student movement at the UNAM opened a
new
political cycle in Mexican history. [p.113] During this
time
Ordorika presents and documents three phases in UNAM
governance:
continuing Populist control tolerated by the government;
followed
by a hardening in the government attacks on the
university; and,
a conservative-elitist reaction that was promoted,
protected, and
supported by the political system. [p. 115]
The events of 1968 were exceptional in that the Rector
confronted the State in support of the students and
academic
freedom. The Tlateloco Massacre [resulting in the death
of
hundreds of students] ended the student protests and
eventually
the Populist control of the administration of the UNAM.
Yet by
1970 the student body had grown to 107,000 with 9400
faculty and
another 10,000 staff. Growth rates of 38%, 21%, and 28%
respectively were cited for the period since 1966. [p.
122]
Clearly the access goals of the populist administration
succeeded.
The new Rector in 1970 was a Progressive who had the
support
of the President depite conservative opposition.
Increased
enrollment and financial support from the government led
to a
period of external peace [between the UNAM and State].
The
university itself remained fragmented and tense. Within
the
university the force of social change, democracy, and
equity
continued to confront State authoritarianism. Internal
policy did
not overcome or change the social reality in which the
university
existed, and State power was not ready to give up its
privileged
position.
The power of the Presidency was able to maintain the
Rector's
position in the face of union, student, and conservative
faculty
opposition. The tensions continued within UNAM as a
restructuring
prepared for the next rectorship.
Finally, Power and Politics describes the return of
a
conservative-elite administration, and a cycle of
centralization
and decentralization that evolved during the last half of
the
twentieth century [chapter 6]. The new Rector [1973]
brought
with him a return to the elitist values of efficiency and
productivity. An anti-union, anti-political university
was
expected to emphasize quality over access and expansion.
The UNAM
had grown to 138,000 students and beginning enrollment
was capped
at 40,000 per year [the populaton of the country was
about 30
million at the time]. Much of the enrollment was shifted
away
from the main campus to the new schools that had been
formed
under greater control of the administration.
The growth of the university led to a phenomenon that
Ordorika
termed “bureaucratic authoritarianism.”
Schools were
given greater individual autonomy [decentralized] to
reduce
conflict with student, faculty, and staff unions. This
process
allowed an apparent democratization, but limited the
authority of
leadership of the seemingly autonomous schools. This
methodology
was used periodically to combat internal dissent to the
advantage
of the central administration that was nearly always
linked to
the Presidential power of the Republic. This conclusion,
well
documented by the history of the times, is one of a
number of
innovative points substantiated by the weight of evidence
presented by Imanol Ordorika in Power and
Politics.
Conclusion
Ordorika succeeds in moving the history of the
National
University and Mexican politics to a new level of
knowledge.
Integrating the history of the educational institution
with that
of the government and state power, he brings a new
understanding
to the history of Mexico in the 20th century.
Among
the most significant aspects of Ordorika’s success
is his
place as a Mexican scholar: home-grown with a personal
history
integrated with the nature of the society, the
university, and
the state.
The theoretical literature on conflict and change,
introduced
his alternative vision built on theories of conflict as
the
source of change and adding the conflict(s) among the
constituencies of the UNAM as the source of its change
over time.
This allowed him to downplay the importance of
legislative-constitutional guarantees of autonomy that
had
provided the basis for the existing theory, but did not
produce
pragmatic power.
The evidence combined politics and education
clarifying the
nature of the political system after 1945. The State and
its
extension into the politics of the university were
parallel
expressions of the authoritarian, single-party Mexican
government: personalized power, limited political
competition,
and limited participation.
Ordorika proved that autonomy was more than a legal or
constitutional provision. His examination of the evidence
and a
more pragmatic reality created a new vision of the
“autonomous” Universidad Nacional Autonoma de
Mexico.
In addition, he showed that the development of the other
colleges
and universities in Mexico are directly connected to the
experience of the UNAM. Ordorika summarizes much of this
as:
“... while the law [1945 Organic Law] retained a
relatively
high degree of formal autonomy, the linkages between
dominant
groups at the University and the Mexican government
ensured
compliance and full cooperation with State
policies.”
[p.193]
The concluding chapter [7] describes/reasserts the
thesis
through a brief and precise reiteration of the
evidence:
- UNAM was a part of the hegemonic apparatus and
was/is
involved in the political conflict in its internal and
external
relations;
- the actual distribution of power and its
distribution
through the university's structure;
- an assessment of the university autonomy in its
three
components - political, academic and campus, and
financial;
- the relationship between politics and change at the
UNAM
with the conclusion that this conflict is the most
significant in
explaining transformation [and lack of] in the National
University. [p. 191-192]
In the final analysis, Ordorika installs a new
paradigm for
viewing the issue of autonomy and the politics intrinsic
to the
operation of the UNAM. He has produced a new standard,
for the
historian and the political scientist in understanding
the UNAM
and Mexican politics.
About the Reviewer
James J. Harrington, Ph.D. is an experienced
teacher of
history, a school administrator, and an independent
scholar doing
research on history and higher education in Latin
America. His
work has described the growth of private higher education
in
Central America and, most recently, the higher education
reform
that followed the civil war in El Salvador, 1994-2004.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment