Book Review: Save the World on Your Own Time - Stanley Fish

Since the opening of Harvard College—the first university in the United States—higher education reformation has not ceased. Reformers respond to the question of the purpose of a university. In Save the World on Your Own Time, author Stanley Fish attempts to answer this question by articulating the role of university educators in teaching students practical skills necessary to enter the workforce after college. Fish published his book with Oxford University Press in 2008 after decades of working in higher education as both an instructor and administrator. Fish combines anecdotes, personal research, and rebuttals of other scholars to present a thorough argument for why instructors should focus only on teaching skills in the classroom and leave no space for political agendas or moral development.

Save the World on Your Own Time is divided into three main sections: a job description for educators, an appeal for why educators should not do the jobs of others, and the barrage of opposition to his academic ideal. Within and between these sections, Fish offers additional tidbits of advice, such as his “Administrative Interlude,” which applauds administrators for their underappreciated job of keeping the university running. In Chapters One and Two, Fish proposes what he deems to be the primary responsibility of teachers: “(1) introduce students to bodies of knowledge and traditions of inquiry they didn’t know much about before; and (2) equip those same students with the analytical skills that will enable them to move confidently within those traditions and to engage in independent research should they choose to do so” (18). In Chapter Two, Fish further delineates what he perceives to be the responsibility of educators. Much of the book is devoted to the concept of academicizing, which is the process of detaching a topic or issue from social urgency and examining it within a context of academic urgency; then, the phenomenon can be analyzed from many angles, including historical decisions that shaped the present issue, as well as current contributing factors. Fish emphasizes the importance of the pursuit of truth, rather than moral virtue, since there is no standard virtue consistent across all cultures. Finally, Fish says his view of higher education is deflationary since he plainly states that universities cannot take full credit for the transformation of students; if students are morally transformed in any capacity, it is a peripheral effect of education, not an intended outcome.

In Chapter Three, Fish celebrates administrators while highlighting the ways in which faculty members abuse or discredit their efforts. Fish also appeals to administrators to take responsibility for anything and everything, even if it falls outside the scope of their job description; otherwise, all members of the institution suffer and no one else will take initiative to resolve the issue. Chapters Four and Five highlight the tension between democracy and higher education. Americans want to incorporate democratic ideals into college governance, but the very nature of the university structure emphasizes rank, seniority, and individualism. Fish supports his argument by explaining why shared governance is not an effective management style, how intellectual diversity hinders academic rigor, and how academic freedom and free speech are frequently applied incorrectly. Academic freedom is meant to be strictly academic, in that instructors are free to structure a course in whatever manner they like as long as their choices are for academic rather than personal purposes; they have the freedom to do their job (81, 82). Academic freedom does not protect instructors when they step outside academic bounds.

In Chapter Six, Fish shares how higher education has come under attack as funding has decreased while operating costs continue to rise, yet universities are expected to provide more resources for students every year. He argues that administrators should not have to justify the importance of universities to outside constituents, as that devalues higher education. Finally, Fish concludes the book by restating his argument, addressing a few more critics, and expressing once more why it is important to separate politics from education.

Because Fish has a background in English composition and describes to readers how to effectively analyze an argument, he is well positioned to construct a solid argument that would stand up to critiques on form; content is irrelevant for the moment. Fish partially academicized the issue of teaching and learning in higher education, and the entire book engages readers in a dialogue about what is or is not appropriate. Throughout the book, Fish refutes other scholars who disagree with him on certain topics. Fish skillfully separates the ethical or political arguments from the academic ones. For example, he agrees with critic John Carey that if Fish condoned murder, he would be a poor role model. However, as he points out in this rebuttal and others, Fish’s controversial point about Samson Agonistes resulted from an academic interpretation of the reading of the play and in no way portrays his view on the wrongness of murder. Fish states Carey should have backed up his reason for saying Fish’s interpretation was wrong; otherwise, Carey’s opposition holds no weight. By his own standards of what constitutes an effective argument, Fish articulates sound reasoning for his analysis of effective education. Many readers may not agree with Fish or may take offense at the way he communicates his message, but his argument is no less valid. That, indeed, is Fish’s point.

How a reader proceeds to act or enact change upon closing the back cover of the book is entirely independent of the discussion held within. Fish might want all universities to operate according to his ideal, but he recognizes this plea is impossible and impractical. As he wrote about the relationship between teachers and students, Fish likewise cannot control how a reader responds to his argument. Hopefully readers will walk away a bit more knowledgeable about effective higher education, though further transformation of the reader or their university might not happen; regardless, if Fish was indeed academicizing the issue, his singular goal was to disseminate information for academic analysis. He accomplished this goal.

Considering Fish’s academicized approach towards writing this book, he does not present many alternative views on the role of the professoriate for serious consideration; he merely explains why his opponents are wrong. Perhaps Fish assumes readers approach Save the World with views he argues against and thus have previously analyzed them critically. Fish opens the book by declaring that he will prove why he is “right and the nine hundred are wrong” (13). He implies that his view is the only correct view; the only times he presents alternative views are when he refutes them to prove a point. As a result, Fish’s comments should not be taken out of context. While much of his diction is intentionally provocative and abrasive, Fish’s points remain valid and must be considered within the context of the paragraph or section in which he wrote them.

The struggle is that Fish’s approach towards higher education is idealistic but implausible in American democratic society. Fish offers many practical teaching ideas, such as academicizing, forming the syllabus around texts rather than current issues, and keeping current social issues out of the classroom. In reality, it would be impossible to completely reshape higher education to operate in Fish’s utopia since centuries of reform led to the current state. Professors are seen as mentors, and students might have difficulty separating academic and moral guidance. Teachers can mentor on their own time, outside of the classroom, but few embrace the separation Fish promotes. Fish argues that universities should not attempt to prepare students to be good citizens in a democratic society. However, American institutions were built upon this goal. While Fish has a valid point that educators cannot assess the effectiveness of their teaching by standards of morality, it would be nearly impossible to remove the notion of democracy from higher education because it is deeply engrained in American society.

Furthermore, Fish describes supposedly simple tests to determine whether issues have been academicized or if academic freedom or First Amendment rights have been violated. These issues are complex, and all the nuances cannot be adequately addressed in this book. An instructor probably will not take the time to consider whether or not every statement they utter has been academicized. The entire culture of higher education training will need to change in order to create a truly academicized learning environment. Even at that, humans have biases that cannot be fully separated from their work. Fish points out that political affiliations should in no way affect teaching ability, which is accurate. However, if personal biases affect the interpretation of qualitative research, the same can be assumed for the influence of bias on classroom culture and discussion to a certain extent since the same humans are teaching an area of expertise (and hopefully passion).

It is not clear who Fish is addressing with Save the World on Your Own Time, other than perhaps any scholar who has opposed him. For those looking to learn or engage in dialogue about best practices in higher education, Save the World might provide a starting place for debating how to structure courses. Educators wanting to enliven their classroom might appreciate Fish’s thoughts on academicizing and seriously consider how to adjust their own pedagogy. Save the World on Your Own Time concludes with a resigned tone, as Fish recognizes that if even a few individuals adopt his approach, little change will be seen. However, his points are worth considering when examining what higher education was, is, and has the potential to become.