Shand is way out

The Hon. T. P. Shand is clearly guilty of woolly thinking over the question of "academic freedom."

He confuses academic freedom with democratic rights. Academic freedom is the freedom students and staff have to pursue the truth as they see fit.

It is not a special privilege as Mr. Shand suggests. By definition only academics have use for such a freedom.

Students exercise their democratic rights when they demonstrate against Government policies, wear jeans and grow beards.

What Mr. Shand was endeavouring to say has nothing to do With academic freedom.

In order to ensure public opinion doesn't turn against the universities he asks members of the various institutions to refrain from baiting the community with unorthodox ideas.

His approach is quite pragmatic. If the universities don't alienate the public he (as an advocate of greater expenditure on education) will find it easier to convince his colleagues in Cabinet of the necessity of increased attention in these areas.

On the surface students and staff appear to have a choice between "behaving themselves" and maintaining the flow of public monies into the universities or acting when inclined and suffering the consequences.

In reality subservience to public opinion is hardly likely to breed the necessary positive attitude to the universities, from the community.

This nation of self-made men is taking its time to discover that universities are an integral part of our economy.

Society is also slow to learn that its elders are not necessarily the best informed.

Youth, with its wider opportunities for consuming knowledge, is being told by Mr. Shand to beware of expressing an opinion which may offend the ignorant masses.

The implications of the suggestion are frightening. Is the public to be shielded from knowledge acquired in the universities?

The answer is no. If our society is to function as a democracy there must be free exchange of ideas.

Intelligent political decisions by the citizenry can only occur when the people are informed about the issues of the clay. Thus it is in the national interest that academics communicate their views to the public.

The trend should be encouraged, not reversed as Mr. Shand suggests.

Students and staff should continue to speak out and make known their views on issues as they arise.

B.G.S.