PRIVATIZATION
OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE THREAT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM
In November, I attended a
conference jointly sponsored by the Canadian Association of University Teachers
and the Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada, entitled
“Disciplining Dissent: The Curbing of Free Expression in Academia and the
Media”. This was the first
time that academics and professional journalists came together to discuss
issues surrounding threats to freedom of expression in the media and in
university settings. The opening session of the conference, “First Principle:
telling it like it is”, featuring talks by Michael Valpy
of the Globe and Mail, and Patrick
O’Neill from the Psychology Department at Acadia University, set forth the
principal threats to freedom of speech from both within and outside the
university. Both saw the role of
academics and journalists as similar. In Valpy’s
words, they are the “irritants in the oyster of society”. Those in power (both
within the university governance structure and in government) want us to
believe that they speak with a single voice, and that this is the voice of
truth. Academics and journalists must fight to maintain a diversity of opinion
and a multiplicity of voices in Canada. Pat reminded us that we must also
beware of attacks on freedom of expression that seek to suppress the
publication of controversial or politically “incorrect” material. Censorship of
controversial material gives us less speech. We have a right to hear all points
of view. When academics and journalists publish or report on findings, the goal
should always be to produce “more speech”.
Another talk, given by Donald Savage, former Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, underscored the way in which academic freedom in the university can be threatened both internally and externally. In his talk Don focussed on the particular threats to academic freedom that have resulted from the recent move in both Australia and New Zealand to redefine universities as private corporations. Since the mid 1980s New Zealand has experienced a marked turn to the right and an increase in neoconservative policies, first with the Labour Party in the 1980s, and, more recently, the National Party from 1990 to 1999. The Labour government of the 1980s emphasized deregulation and privatization as the way to solve economic problems. Professor Gary Hawke of Victoria University underlined this same vision in his report commissioned by the Ministry of Education in 1988. According to Professor Hawke, academic administrators should become entrepreneurial businessmen, and be given the necessary powers to manage their institutions.
The role of the president of such a university is similar to that of the CEO of a private company. Privatized universities must show a profit. And just as companies restrict the rights of their employees to express negative opinions about the company in order to avoid any detrimental influence on the company product, universities should limit academic freedom, independent research, and free speech by imposing speech codes which prevent academics from criticizing their institution or engaging in public debate on controversial issues which might have a negative impact on the “brand name” of the university.
A further report from the Labour government’s
task force on Performance Indicators in 1989 recommended that the major goals
of the university should be student numbers, graduation rates, and
employability (Counting out the scholars
123). This would have effectively reduced the mission of the university to
training students for specific jobs. Traditional forms of professional
accountability would have been replaced by external forms of accounting,
focussing on the quantity of activity, rather than on the quality of outcome,
viewing students as “outputs” and academic staff as “vested interests to be
undermined” (Counting out the scholars
122). Because the Labour government in New Zealand fell shortly after this
report was prepared, it was never officially adopted as government policy.
Nonetheless, it continued to influence the policies of the National party
government throughout the 1990s. Bureaucratic schemes to remove the
requirements in the Education Act that universities have more than one faculty,
be engaged in research, and show commitment to academic freedom as barriers to
trade flourished, although none were carried out. Nonetheless, by 1999 there
were approximately 800 private providers of post-secondary education. Government
subsidies to this sector increased from 1.98 million New Zealand dollars in
1992 to a projected 128.4 million in 2001 (Counting
out the Scholars 124). Bear these statistics in mind the next time you hear
rhetoric about how private, for-profit universities will reduce costs to
taxpayers.
What is wrong with this view of the university as a private corporation, and why should universities not restrict their employees’ rights to free speech?
Donald Savage provided several convincing answers to these questions. First, the university is not a private company: it is a public corporation with a mission to provide critical teaching, independent research, and, in the words of the New Zealand Education Act, to function as “the critic and conscience of society.” It would be absurd, as Don rightly pointed out, to say that academics can be critical of all aspects of society except those having to do with the university in which they work. It would be equally absurd to suggest that academics can be the critics and conscience of society but cannot make their views about their own university public without the approval of the university administration. In such a scenario, the university administration might well claim that it has no intention of censoring anything; it simply wants the academic to consult with the administration before making any public declaration. But for what reason would a university administration want to discuss the views of a professor of Biology or of English Literature? The only reason for requiring such a discussion is to allow the administration, in an effort to protect the “brand name” of the university, to put pressure on those with unpopular views not to express them.
Canada has been involved in both the creation and adoption in 1997 of UNESCO’s international statement on academic freedom (Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel). When education is debated at UNESCO, Canada is represented by a delegate from the Council of Ministers of Education, rather than the federal government. In 1997, Canada’s delegate was the Minister of Education from Nova Scotia, who spoke in favour of the statement and voted for its adoption. According to this statement, higher education teaching personnel have the right “… to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship…”
The Canadian Association of University Teachers also has a statement on academic freedom that includes the “… freedom to criticize the university and the faculty association, and freedom from institutional censorship.” It also states that academic freedom does not require neutrality. This means that academics are not restricted to simply presenting the pros and cons of an argument, and do not have to avoid taking a position because university censorship prevents them from doing so; this gives them the freedom to take a stand.
Many faculty associations in Canada have similar language in their collective agreements. Our own collective agreement defines academic freedom in article 5.20: “Academic freedom includes the freedom of Employees to express and uphold opinions without encumbrance, to carry out research which they believe will enhance knowledge, and to express the results of such research in a reasonable manner without interference. The Parties shall scrupulously adhere to and protect this principle, against threats from inside and outside the University.”
The examples from New Zealand clearly indicate how academic freedom can be threatened from both inside and outside the university, thereby serving the goals of a conservative government eager to silence leftwing opposition, as well as those of university administrators intent on protecting the reputation of their institution. Those who seek to censure unpopular ideas, either through speech codes or more direct means, are often surprised at the paradoxical effects of their efforts. In New Zealand, it was widely assumed by those in favour of restricting academic freedom that this would serve to silence extreme left-wing points of view. Ironically, one of the most persistent critics of his own university was a right-wing economist at Victoria University who felt that his university was not sufficiently market-driven and catered too much to political correctness. The university administration made a determined effort to silence him, undermining its own goals, and rallying much left-wing support. This is, indeed, the permanent paradox of censorship: it is always the strongest publicity agent for unpopular ideas. But the fact that censorship efforts ultimately, in some sense, fail, does not mean that we should take them lightly. While some will speak out despite the threat of censorship, many will not. Any time a voice is silenced by implied threat or open coercion academic freedom is at peril. And without academic freedom, the university cannot accomplish its mission to serve as the critic and conscience of society, let alone of the university itself.
References
Bruneau, Bill and Don Savage. Counting out the Scholars. The Case Against Performance Indicators in Higher Education. Toronto: Lorimer, 2002.
Crozier. R. (ed.) Troubled Times: Academic Freedom in New Zealand. NZ: Dunsmore Press, 2000.
Janice Best