Talk Amongst Yourselves

What could possibly go wrong?

The ideal of a well-run self-governing body of academics probably runs against many cultural stereotypes, from Asimov's Second Foundation to Jim March's (et al) Garbage Can Model to Sayre's Law. 

It might be argued that middlemen in the academy are a holdover from when we needed scribes and copyists, who evolved (devolved?) to Chief Information Officers, in charge of buying inferior products from the company with the biggest marketing budget, and their ilk. But the trouble remains that someone has to officiate when the physicists tell the biologists that they are not doing real science, or the engineers tell the marketing scholars that a better mousetrap is the sole requirement for customers to beat paths to doors. Now, I cannot claim to see a Utopian future that will only come about when an ideologically pure vanguard sets the tone for the rest of society. But what I can say is that the first gang of 16, who will endure the first non-value-adding phase of my proposed experiment, must in addition to volunteering their time for an uncertain outcome, also suspend some of the habits of thought formed during their period of apprenticeship in the contemporary academy. So, yes, maybe I am demanding not only ideological purity, but also an awareness of how massacres and purges can easily be justified by appeals to ideological purity.

Nonsense? It may well be, but hear me out. What are the characteristics of the pioneering 16 that would help circumvent some of the most obvious failure modes? A list. I love lists.

1. They must genuinely like each other.
   Academics, more than any other class of people, are notorious for standing on principle. And for not all having the same meaning in mind when using the word "principle". So principles will need to bend in a close collaboration such as this. If this is to be done without pedagogically-unnecessary outsiders, the 16 will have to bend principle based on genuine liking for each other.
2. They must be smug enough to neglect their own ego.
   Or, in other words, not need to win every argument just to know they are right. "Intrinsically motivated" is another way of putting it. It is not enough to agree on a destination. Or to take every turn as a group. The important thing is that every wrong turn taken, when back-tracked, does not lead to grudges, whether against or by, the minority that voted against it. Fortunately, the self-effacing genius is a more prevalent stereotype than the that it should not be a barrier.
3. Like all entrepreneurs, everyone must be willing to wear every hat (of the non-academic variety).
   It would compromise standards to give any course to any PhD (which otherwise reputable universities have been known to do) but when we only have 16 people to be registrar, bursar and janitor, everyone must pitch in.
4. And of course it would be a great help if most could cover more than one field. Renaissance men and women are always in demand here.