Universities forgotten in the "Great Education Debate" - Peter Hall Comments on Responsibility

In a News and Views on September 22^nd dealing with  the October 15 debate on education policy at the National Press Club between the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, and the deputy leader of the Labor Party and Shadow Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Jenny Macklin we noted the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee CEO John Mullarvey as issuing a media release bitterly complaining, "It is a real pity that the Government and the Opposition seem focussed on October 9 rather than on the long-term agenda for Australia’s future. It is a sad indictment on our society when higher education becomes lost in the 'Great Education Debate'."

We went on to say, "the AVCC and the higher education sector as a whole are certainly partly to blame for the apathy shown by federal parliamentary leaders towards upgrading the higher education sector. Not until the voting public becomes convinced of the importance of a top class university system... will the parliamentarians be moved.

    To say that to date higher education has made a hash of putting its arguments before the public is a gross understatement.

In a response Peter Hall makes the following points:

The AVCC's protest has indeed sunk below the waves of popular journalism.

I am bound to react to your comment that "the higher education sector as a whole are certainly partly to blame" for the problem. While this may be true, it is worth reflecting on the responsibility that your comments place on universities.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that (a) a particularly strong system of higher education and university research is essential to the future prosperity of Australia; (b) the present system is approaching a state of very real difficulty; and (c) the government denies both (a) and (b) are true.  Then, at some point, the quality of our universities will decline to a seriously 
low level, the country's prosperity will be adversely affected as a result, and a future government will say it was not their fault.

Does the fault lie in the university sector for not being more effective in arousing the government's attention? Certainly we have been vocal, but as you say, we have not been effective.  It's an interesting point.

I'm reminded of a submission to one of the first of Nelson's many enquiries into higher education, stressing the fund-raising roles forced upon many academics.  We are expected to find the cash to pay our salaries, by touting for full fee-paying students, by finding private companies to support our research, etc.  As the writer of the submission said, no-one 
expects bus drivers to find the petrol for their vehicles, or nurses to bring to work the bed pans needed by their patients.

I believe that if (a) and (b) above are true, then at some point the responsibility to recognise that fact does lie with our political leaders. Academics can give the problems a degree of publicity, but their  influence is not especially strong.  No matter what we do, we are seen as having a vested interest in the issue we are discussing.  In the face of very substantial government cuts to funding, many of us in the sector are working hard to find the money to pay for the petrol, and for the bed pans, that make Australian higher education work, even if its level of  operation is declining.  In not a few cases our jobs will disappear if we do not come up with the cash demanded of us.

It seems virtually impossible for universities alone to persuade a significant part of the Australian public that higher education is a worthwhile investment for their future, relative to tax cuts in their pocket today.  We need political leaders who will help us along that path. At present, Australia does not seem to have those political leaders.  Producing them is not clearly the responsibility of the university sector alone.

Peter Hall (Professor)

Mathematical Sciences Institute, The Australian National University
 

TFW replies:

A system must be put in place by the university sector to develop a professional lobby which knows how to use the media to bring the message to the public and its parliamentarians, that the matter is of crucial important to them and why it is. It can't be a short term effort if it's to be successful, and it must be sustained. Properly handled and sufficiently resourced will it work? I think it would.

Is it the responsibility of our political leaders to adequately invest in the higher education sector? Yes, it is, but I don't see them being held accountable except by the public and that gets me back to the necessity for influencing a significant portion of the voting public, specifically the swinging voting public. And getting the media to take an active interest is essential. I don't believe media releases per se from the AVCC, the Go8 or the NTEU will do the job.
 

Professor Hall:

One of the obstacles to taking the course of action you suggest is  that there is a significant degree of mistrust among Australia's Vice-Chancellors. The government exploits this, and will apparently continue to do so until someone from outside the sector can show leadership.

John Howard's government will listen to businessmen and women, but, apparently, seldom to academics.  If a group of business people respected by the government were to approach it and call for more investment in higher education, citing economic problems in the event that this was not done; and if they could be authoritative in their claims; then we might make progress. I believe that in the past the AVCC have tried to enlist business as an ally, and continue to try to get business leaders to speak on their behalf.

As regards getting the voting public and the media to become active allies, I agree with you, but I don't know what the answer is. The professional societies, and individual academics, do what they can, but they are seen by both politicians and the public as vested interest groups.