Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume. 33, Number 10. 8 July, 1970

Salient Interview

page 5

Salient Interview

For some of the most influential members of the university community, you are now public enemy number one. Is this a particularly healthy situation?

Well I think perhaps I'm being a little unfairly judged when it's thought I'm public enemy number one. I assure you there is neither reason for that nor, if they were to meet me and talk this over personally, would I feel that people would think that way afterwards. I would, for instance, like to know from you why they would feel this way.

I think it's a question of the emphasis which you have placed on the matter of the universities being hypersensitive to criticism on the subject of students who you feel are giving the universities a bad image, and "getting value for money spent".

Let me go over this ground, to give you the background picture. In the Address and Reply debate I took the opportunity, the first opportunity I had in the house since I became Under-Secretary, to explain some of the things I felt needed doing and saving: to put education's presence in a positive way before the community to get the very considerable measure of support that is going to be needed to finance the forward commitment in education, and believe me it's big. In buildings alone it's 250 million dollars in the next five years. Universities are a substantial clement of this. The reference to universities really was one small part of my speech, but it was apparently the part that the newspapers chose to feature. Now the essence of my story there was that the universities, along with every other aspect of education, must be mindful of the importance of winning the friendship of the public. The way to do this is to sell education positively and to make sure that the public believes it's getting value for money. Now things that cause the public to feel it is not getting value for money only hurt the cause of education. This was the philosophy behind my observations. This reference the other day to hypersensitive reactions was in fact a letter I wrote to the University Council in Canterbury nearly a month ago in response to a motion of censure which was passed by the Council. When I spoke of the universities being too sensitive to criticism I had in mind particularly the way in which Canterbury Council reacted to me and the Victoria Council reacted to Professor Titchener. I thought Professor Titchener was perfectly entitled to make his points. I'm sure he made them thoughtfully. I thought he made them effectively, and whether people agree with them or not, surely he's just as entitled to have his say, and I'm just as entitled to have my say as those who claim I have all sorts of motivations that they don't agree with.

On the question of the universities being hypersensitive to criticism—I rang Dr Taylor, the Vice-Chancellor at Victoria, yesterday to ask him to make some comment on this and he said: I do not agree with Mr Gair that the universities are sensitive to criticism when that criticism is well-founded, but they are rightly sensitive to ill-informed criticism from whatever source, and they are at the disadvantage of being unable to reply because as a university it is inappropriate for them to do so". It's a very carefully worded statement, but I think the point he makes is a valid one, and that is that the nature of the university community is such that it can't really indulge in public debate about its own merits because universities are not the sort of bodies which are equipped to do this in the same way as other pressure groups.

Photograph of George Gair

Mr George Gair, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Education, was again in the news last week with his reported "observation to the Canterbury University Council that it "should note the growing public impatience with the behaviour of certain students. "Mr Gair also told the Council that "universities have sometimes been hypersensitive to criticism."

I don't think it is necessary for them to get involved in public debate, but merely to acknowledge sometimes, when suggestions are made, that they might have validity. Now I refer to Professor Titchener's observations and the reaction that took place at Victoria. Are you going to suggest to me that Professor Titchener was ill-informed? I think that the Professor is an example of a person whose observations should be given at least the benefit of careful study.

However, it seems that what the university community expects of its Minister of Education and Under-Secretary for Education is a more positive defence of the university's role against attacks which as you must know are coming from such intemperate sources as TRUTH and continually in the letter columns. These attacks are not necessarily informed and we rely on you to some extent to defend our cause.

Are you suggesting to me that a friend in life can't speak frankly? It is my mission in this job to support the Minister of Education to do all he can to expand education, to improve its standards and to make as much effective progress as possible. One thing we need to achieve is a very large reservoir of public goodwill, and aspects of our behaviour—be they at the pre-school level or at the university level—which cause the public to think and feel ill of all or any aspect of education make our task unnecessarily difficult. I believe that most people, and I mean most people, are prepared to give education the benefit of the doubt on almost every occasion, in terms of support and assistance. But then we have examples of capping parades that go off the rails and break glass doors and produce situations which the public don't want to associate with education. Now, let me give you an example. I was criticised by one of you people for expressing my distress at the demonstration on Parliament Building steps last week when the Minister of Education was abused and jeered at by youngsters. I was criticised for this. But I ask you sincerely, do you think that that image of the product of more than two hundred million dollars worth of investment each year in education was a good advertisement for education? I don't think so, and I think that that sort of thing has got to be placed in its proper context. Now if I make the point that a few students are not behaving as the community would wish they should, I would think that the universities' answer is really to agree 'We don't like this behaviour either". If they had said that they would have gone a long way to meeting my points and of reinforcing their better image in the eyes of the public.

Advert for BNZ Bank

But when you raised this question at the Canterbury University Council one of your critics there, the Rev. Wilson, said "Mr Gair has lumped together these two groups, mischief makers and those motivated by conscience, and he has used the behaviour of the first group as a threat to curb funds and gain public support in so doing"

I think you 'd agree I said "the very few", I used those words . . .

Yes, certainly, but again it's a question of emphasis. It is disquieting that the Under-secretary for Education should place so much emphasis on this kind of question.

I'm sure that you'd give me the benefit of being sincere and I'm quite sincere when I say that the standard of education is not as high as it could be and anything that can be done to make that standard higher will improve my chances and the Minister's chances and the University Council's chances of seeing that university and other aspects of education can be further strengthened.

But the question at point is whether or not the behaviour of a minority of students is really an education question. We know that it affects the public image of the university . . .

Do you acknowledge that point?

Yes, I do.

Well, do you acknowledge that for the record too?

Yes, certainly.

Well, you see this is the point. If the University Councils themselves would acknowledge that . . .

They're aware of this, I'm sure.

Why do they sometimes react as they do when people sincerely wishing to help their cause try to identify the weak spots and either call for attention in those weak spots, or at least explain them away and make it abundantly clear to the public that the university's total picture, the total image of the university, shouldn't be judged by a handful?

The difficulty here, experienced by university councils as much as by student administrative bodies, is that what you're criticising here and what is bad is very close to what is so good about a university community, and that is the ability to, we hope with an open mind, criticise what is going on in the community at large. Now you referred particularly to the question of the legalisation of marijuana. Why aid you pick on this particular issue?

I don't think that the whole body of student opinion, or of university thinking, should be branded with that particular resolution.

It's not.

Well I assure you that there are many people in the public who see these headline-making manifestations from the university and automatically conclude that this is in fact the university. Now if you don't appreciate the point I'm trying to make, it is going to be hard for me to get my message across, but I assure you that if you go to people outside if university, people who are not in any way connected with me or with the Government, and ask them objectively I think you will find that there is a wide measure of opinion held amongst the John Citizens that the headline-making resolutions in favour of pot or the trouble that occurs on capping day, breaking glass windows and smashing bottles, and so on, that this in fact is the university.

Your criticism could be more profitably levelled at the news media because what is not publicised is the fact that during the course of that procession, which was so widely criticised this year, some 1300 dollars was collected for chanty and vastly greater sums were collected during the processions at other universities. And of course there are the on-going good things being done in the universities where students are passing units, and the pass rates are good.

Well, first of all could I dispose of a question that you raised that I didn't have the opportunity to reply to a moment ago? This was the question of the very good work that can be done in the university in passing objective criticism on the community around it. This is fair enough. But I'm sure you will agree that this can work both ways and the community can pass objective criticism on the university. Now, on the other point that you made, the question of the good things that the university does. I agree that there is a public relations problem for the university. But this is present for everything in a democratic society where you have free speech and a free press. Is it not encumbent therefore upon the university and the organised body of students to do something positive? Now let me give you examples of the sort of things that I have in mind: I have appeared on three occasions at Auckland University within the last four weeks. One was to take part in a symposium on the physical environment. Now this was good. It was an example of something positive and useful that student activity was doing and organising. I was up there for a visit through buildings. I saw examples of buildings that were bad and buildings that were good. I then had a lunchtime chat with students. Later the same week I represented the Prime Minister in giving an address on foreign aid and foreign trade to a university gathering. For the first ten minutes, with nearly 200 in the audience, I could hardly hear myself think for some of the hissing. But it didn't bother me because I knew it was good-natured and I boxed on regardless. And it finished up, I believe, even if they didn't agree with what I was saying (and some of the students did, incidentally), as a good-natured discussion. Now, can I get back to the first point that you made that there are some people at the university who feel I'm public enemy number one? People who feel that way, I sincerely suggest, are judging me without either knowing me, or even without knowing what I have said. I would expect a better and more careful analysis from a university audience before I'm judged that way.

Yet, on the other hand, members of the public arc judging the universities in exactly the same way. They're hearing of the activities of what may or may not be a significant number of students and judging all of us superficially. It's a little disquieting to see you attacking the universities on grounds which they find it very difficult to reply to. Don't you think they're aware of the problems you've mentioned?

Please, please. What causes you to say I "attacked" the universities? I invite you to read my Address and Reply speech carefully word for word, and if you cam find an attack upon the university in that, I'll buy you a big beer.

Right, Well, I'm ready for my beer right now because I suggest to you that in suggesting to the university councils that they might do something to encourage troublemakers to leave the universities and make room for others you have made criticism of the councils which in no way takes account of the fact of the difficulty in doing this sort of thing. First of all, there is the difficulty of isolating these troublemakers, if in fact they exist.

The university councils have very considerable powers. They are bodies of democratically elected citizens from, I will admit, a very small area of electors but they...

They're very diverse areas of electors...

Yes, but heavily academic. I don't think the composition of the franchise need bother us at page 6 this stage. The important thing is that the university councils are made up of responsible people who assume rights and responsibilities along with their positions. They spend a lot of public money. They have important and prestigious public positions. Now I feel, in fact I am confident, that the university councils are capable of administering their universities properly and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I do suggest that, from time to time when someone sincerely supporting education sees problem areas and draws attention to these in as effective a way as is available to him, it's hardly fair to turn around and criticise him when in fact he wants to help. Now it could be that some of my comments have been misunderstood or misjudged, in which case I perhaps haven't expressed myself as clearly as I would wish.

Photograph of George Gair

A university council may see a specific action on the part of one or two students as being something that prejudices the image of the university community but it may notice at the same time that there are on-going activities by other students which arc far more pernicious. There is a problem of judgement here which is not a simple one and of course any university council is determined above all else to be right, and to be very sure that it's right. The whole question of disciplining students is an incredibly complex one and it does sound a rather simplistic approach to talk about the few trouble-making students.

Well, you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I just want you to know that the reasons behind my comments were reasons which were those of someone who wishes to be a friend of the university, who himself is a product of it. I have a brother who is lecturing in a university and there arc several degrees in the family. In other words. I'm not foreign to the university environment, or strange to the university, environment, of that I assure you. My comments were those of someone who intended to do something which he felt in the long run, if not in the short run, was in the universities' best interests.

I don't know whether I'm going to get very much more out of you on this question, but again I must ask about the specific problem of isolating those people who are giving the university a bad image.

This is one of the responsibilities of the councils though. It is not for me to tell the councils how to run their universities.

But can you sec how it is a difficult problem?

Look. There arc many things in life that are difficult problems. There are. And things that involve human relationships are a little more difficult than others. I'm aware of the universities' problems, but rather than reacting the way some have done to criticism, because it was criticism although it was very well meant criticism, I thought it would have been better if they had at least agreed with some of the points I was making. For instance, one of them was that only a very few students arc unruly. It was a sort of total rejection of my coments. I don't think that the individual university councillors themselves would totally reject them all anyway. I would remind you too of the fact that not all councillors were present at the meeting of the Canterbury University Council which passed the motion of censure against me. It was an eight to seven decision.

One area of student activity which you particularly referred to was the discussion of marijuana. I don't know whether you know it, but in fact students haven't called for the legalisation of marijuana. They have, on the basis of reports prepared at several universities, called for the controlled use of marijuana, and there are a number of specific and separate proposals involved in this. The public's distate for discussion of marijuana shouldn't, I think, prejudice the university community from discussing it, and yet this discussion is what you referred to specifically.

I gave that and the question of unruly students as examples of the sort of thing which I felt did the university no good in the eyes of the public, this is true, I personally am opposed to the idea of legalising the consumption of drugs that are not medically prescribed, and I'm opposed to this as a general position. I haven't a closed mind on this. I realise that there is scientific argument about the validity of this point with respect to every type of drug. However, I would rather play on the safe side in view of the damage that is being done to young people in other countries than rush in to adopt a liberal attitude on things like marijuana smoking in New Zealand. I would go on record at this stage anyway as being opposed to it, and I'd need a tremendous amount of evidence to convince me otherwise.

That's a point of view which is close to my own, but where we appear to differ is that I'm not an Under-Secretary for Education making a suggestion to the university community that they would be better fit not discussing this sort of subject.

There's no question of them not being permitted by law to discuss these things. We live in a free society. They're free to speak, I'm free to speak, surely. You're free to report. This is not the issue. They're free to discuss by all means, but should they discuss with the silence of other elements in the university so that the end result is that their resolution seems to represent university student opinion? This was my concern. In fact it was a small number of students. We have nearly 30,000 students in New Zealand. How many were involved in this resolution? I think it was something under 2,000.

Well, perhaps we could deal with just a wee bit of empirical fact and that is that in the case of Victoria and Canterbury it was demonstrated in referendums which were held recently that a majority of students were not in favour of the legalisation of marijuana—there was about 40% at Victoria and a similar number at Canterbury. But this, however, doesn't affect the point at issue and that is that a substantial number of students are interested in the question. We find it a little disquieting that you take an interest in subjects like this when perhaps there are more pressing problems for an Under-Secretary for Education.

I wasn't taking a particular interest in these subjects. I was referring to what was then a comparatively recent headline in the paper which was helping to shape public opinion of the universities.

Thank you, Mr Gair.