We are living in one of the most dynamic periods in history, able to witness the nexus of artificial intelligence, digital technology, and internet communications that has created the new world of cyberspace. But as this space expands, its benefits are concentrating, and large swaths of our country are being left behind, unable to critically navigate or prosper in the digital economy.
Darkening clouds of cybercrime and misinformation, and the lack of access to the benefits of this digital economy, are casting shadows of socioeconomic and political insecurity across the country. The digital revolution is contributing to growing imbalances in wealth, prompting the founder of the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, to warn of potentially destabilizing effects.
In this special report, we look at diversity through a somewhat novel lens — that of geography. Our coverage examines how a college’s location affects its mission, its ability to recruit students and faculty members, and its campus culture.
Addressing those challenges will require not a handout to those left behind, but a major educational initiative: I believe our nation should create a “Cyber Land-Grant University” system, to be financed in large part by tapping the wealth of the giant social-media companies. Such an initiative could be modeled on the Land Grant College Act of 1862 (also known as the Morrill Act), under which the federal government provided land grants to the states to establish universities that responded to the educational challenges of the industrial age.
Those new institutions offered scholarly expertise in agriculture and “the mechanical arts” as factories and farms became increasingly mechanized, as well as military training to meet the crisis of the Civil War and its aftermath. Today it is the “land” of cyberspace that is opening up. It is fair to use the wealth created in this new space to pay for the accelerated development of cybereducation programs for geographic areas and populations that are being left behind — programs that would also enhance our national security.
A cyber land-grant system could complement the current land-grant system, but would not be limited to those institutions. Other public or private institutions could apply to be part of it, or new institutions could be developed.
The proposed system would provide seed money and sustained funding with which to hire and retrain a core group of faculty members. They would then rapidly develop courses in highly technical fields like computer science and cybersecurity, and in fields that grapple with related ethical and social challenges, such as business, the humanities, and law. Like today’s land-grant universities, the cyber version could eventually provide “extension services” to further help lagging areas understand and benefit from the digital economy.
This new system could be funded through an education “cyber” tax on the media giants of Silicon Valley — companies that, it is important to remember, have benefited handsomely from the U.S. government’s development of the internet. Who could have predicted that it would become the foundation of our digital economy?
While the list of companies taxed to help fund the proposed system could grow, it would be reasonable to start with large companies like Facebook and Google. And because some of those companies’ practices have had negative social consequences (including large-scale intrusions on privacy, fake accounts, misleading news reports, growing evidence of addictive behavior, and intrusions into elections and other democratic processes), a moral argument can be made for tapping their wealth. An analogy to the taxes currently levied today on gambling, cigarettes, and alcohol does not seem unreasonable.
Whatever issues might be raised in relation to a proposed cyber land-grant university system, the tax proposal would surely be the most contentious one. Silicon Valley should take the moral high ground not only by providing tax revenue but also by making some of its brightest minds available to respond to this crisis.
Current educational efforts to bridge our nation’s digital divide are insufficient for several reasons: First, aging rural and industrial communities, vulnerable minority communities, and the public outside our wealthy tech corridors are falling further behind in the digital economy. Just four states captured 80 percent of venture capital during the first three months of this year, much of it centered on digital innovations associated with leading universities. And yet, as a recent Atlantic article argues, in rural and postindustrial regions, universities — frequently the engines for innovation in tech corridors — are often strapped for resources. Many communities and institutions in the most remote rural states — including some in mine, North Dakota, where I am chancellor of the state higher-education system — simply don’t possess the means to catch up.
Second, certain tax and professional practices have led to the concentration of digital expertise and wealth, both in business corridors and elite universities. For example, digitally oriented philanthropic donations, federal research grants, and corporate sponsorships are concentrated at companies or universities that already have strong digital programs and faculties. They then have the resources to poach rising stars at lesser-known colleges, leading to a damaging cycle that continues to concentrate digital wealth and talent. Those practices need to change to be more inclusive of the remote parts of our country.
Third, what is being taught is misaligned with what must be taught to create the knowledge and skills needed to prosper in a world increasingly dependent on cyberspace. Data show we continue to face a huge shortage of workers for cybersecurity jobs. While the number of degree programs has been growing, the producers of those degrees are not evenly distributed across our nation. For example, a key cybersecurity program certified by the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security is not offered in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, or Wyoming.
Finally, many rural state universities are in areas that have low concentrations of digital-technology companies, and face a shortage of potential part-time faculty experts and knowledge needed for the digital world now emerging.
We need an infusion of new scholars, and training for those already on our campuses, so they can more rapidly develop new courses and conduct research to help their communities prosper. While some apologists may offer up online courses as a solution, we now know that disadvantaged and first-generation students have often been ill served by “online only” delivery. A physical presence and proximity to mentors and teachers are especially important for undergraduates.
Here are some other potential features of a cyber land-grant university system:
- It would provide a state-based, mostly campus-based education concentrated on digital subject matter, but could include some online instruction as well. It would offer technical courses in computer science, coding, AI, data analytics, and computer security, as well as related courses in business, humanities, social sciences, and cyberlaw. In the wake of high-profile national hacks, cybersecurity education should be a top priority, to give the public and businesses the confidence to participate safely in the cybereconomy.
- While it should value and award tenure, it would have flexibility to do so more quickly, and to reward faculty members in other ways as well. Waiting the typical seven years to grant tenure is simply too long in this period of rapid change.
- Similarly, it would seek flexible teaching spaces. Courses could be taught in extension offices or in partnership with local businesses, and not just in the halls of the computer-science department.
- The government could create new tax incentives to encourage donors to support the system, and not just wealthy universities in already-wealthy tech corridors.
- It would offer incentives for technology companies and elite universities to form partnerships with faculty members and programs. For example, skilled company employees and entrepreneurs who collaborated with a cyber land-grant institution could earn faculty or staff rank there. Joint appointments could be offered to faculty members at elite institutions who agreed to teach or conduct research at a cyber land-grant institution.
Could such a system really be financed by taxing big tech companies? Would it be fair and feasible? I believe the answer is yes.
The time for government half-measures and modest corporate and personal philanthropy is past. It is time for federal and state governments, Silicon Valley, and higher education to come together to create a national system of cyberuniversities for the 21st century.
Mark Hagerott is chancellor of the North Dakota University system. He was formerly a cybersecurity fellow at New America, in Washington, D.C., and served as a professor and deputy director in the Center for Cyber Security Studies at the U.S. Naval Academy.
