From its inception, Temple Issues Forum was committed to Robert Putnam’s vision of the engaged -- or reengaged -- university. (Putnam, 199x) Lamenting the turn toward careerism at many universities, its faculty planners saw TIF as a way of reasserting traditional academic commitments to preparation for citizenship and for the life of the mind. TIF was also inspired by Gerald Graff’s pioneering efforts at redesigning university curricula so as to air differences among faculty over educational goals, methods and perspectives, rather than keeping them hidden from students. Graff called it “teaching the conflicts” (Graff, 1992). And TIF was inclined toward widening the conversation, rather than restricting it to elites. In Gerard Hauser’s words, it was committed to “rhetorical democracy.” (Hauser, 2002)
Temple, then, was to become a place at which faculty and students tested ideas in John Stuart Mill’s “free marketplace of ideas.” (Mill, 1947/1859) Issues which faculty normally took up behind closed doors, or in the single teacher classroom, were now to be addressed publicly and collectively. Expertise was to be given its due, but everyone present was to be afforded the opportunity to speak.
From its inception, Temple Issues Forum was committed to Robert Putnam’s vision of the engaged -- or reengaged -- university. (Putnam, 199x) Lamenting the turn toward careerism at many universities, its faculty planners saw TIF as a way of reasserting traditional academic commitments to preparation for citizenship and for the life of the mind. TIF was also inspired by Gerald Graff’s pioneering efforts at redesigning university curricula so as to air differences among faculty over educational goals, methods and perspectives, rather than keeping them hidden from students. Graff called it “teaching the conflicts” (Graff, 1992). And TIF was inclined toward widening the conversation, rather than restricting it to elites. In Gerard Hauser’s words, it was committed to “rhetorical democracy.” (Hauser, 2002)