page 17

Victoria's Little Red School Book

A Review of VUWSAs 1973 Handbook by Professor B.P. Philpott

I've been asked to review this year's Student Handbook particularly from the point of view of its usefulness as an introduction to the University for new students.

The Handbook can virtually be divided into two parts. The first part is a series of articles giving information and guidance about the University and student institutions.

The second part is a set of polemical political articles interspersed throughout the handbook, putting forward a particular point of view on the role of students and of the University in society and indeed the role of society itself.

I'll comment on these two parts separately in a moment.

The Handbook is excellently and vivaciously written and is full of good biting rumbustious humour. There are many consciously funny excerpts such as the comment on the motorway "... an imbecilic motorway which will eventually mean you can drive your horse and cart — the internal combustion engine having necessarily been proscribed — from Porirua to Kilbirnie". There are many unconsciously funny excerpts such as the comment on the academic staff "The bulk of academics ... just simply don't know better and genuinely believe what they teach". This occurs in the one section almost grudgingly conceded to dealing with the staff and headed "Why are so few academics Marxist-Leninists?" Which prompts one to ask of course "Why are so many students"?

This devotion of students to humour is encouraging (for without it the world is lost) but it's surprising in view of the disavowal of humour in the editorial where we read that "A few years ago the preoccupations of those who somehow seem to crystalise the student image were beer and student humour . . .(but) ... no one really seems interested or funny anymore". I disagree.

This disavowal of humour may of course reflect the ageing structure of the student leaders. Nearly 18 years of University experience, it is claimed, is compressed into the three editorials and I suspect that many other of the articles are written by even older almost perennial professional students who would do well to get out into the world outside and cease dodging the cold touch of reality.

Let me turn now to the two parts of the Handbook which I mentioned above.

The guide to the University, the Union, Welfare Services, Eating, Bookshops, Concessions, Legal Referral, Arts, Sports Clubs, etc. is admirable and first year students, especially those new to Wellington, will find it extremely useful as they settle in.

One cannot say the same about the article on drugs which, frankly, is deplorable. We are told first that "there's been so much nonsense written in student publications about drugs . . ." and then the article goes on to perpetrate the greatest nonsense of all time "Opiates i.e. heroin ...don't do you much harm in closely regulated doses". This is not only nonsense it is a culpably irresponsible statement which demands immediate refutation.

If students wish guidance and advice on drugs they should refer not to this article but to a more reliable and experienced authority such as the Student Health Service.

First year students should also treat with the reserve it justifies, the article on examinations which leaves the impression that not only do they not matter but that they're positively harmful and that so too, by inference, is the process of learning which precedes them.

It seems necessary to point out once again to people embarking on a University career, that the process of learning is and always has been hard work, often arduous and tedious and sometimes even boring but above all very demanding by way of effort on the part of the student (and even more so may I say on the part of the teacher). One of the greatest fallacies of this time is to assume that students by being simply exposed to knowledge will somehow acquire it through their mental pores by some subtle osmotic process. It is this fallacy which underlies the virtual failure of our primary school system which is now passing on to the High Schools an increasing proportion of students who cannot even read.

Reverting to the examination system it should, in any case, be noted that a virtual revolution in examination methods (pioneered by my own Department) has been introduced in recent years at Victoria with very great accent on in-class assessment, grading of project work etc. Students who approach their time here under the impression, given by the Handbook's article on exams viz. that exams don't matter will find that they will have wasted their time; they will fail to acquire the knowledge to which they aspire they will fail the trust placed in them by a society which pays for them to be here. Above all they will be wasting good teaching space and scarce resources which could more valuably be used to create more bursaries, more places and more opportunities for "working class" youth whose absence from University the Student Hand Book consistently (and rightly) deplores.

I turn now to the second series of polemical articles concerned with the role of the student, the University and society.

Two quotations from the many which could be given will serve to make my point. Thus on page 48: "New Zealand universities today are part of the education system of the capitalist state. They serve the interests of the capitalist class for whom the state is a weapon to maintain its class rule. Consequently, the philosophy and politics dominant in New Zealand universities serve this aim. They support the exploitation of the working people which is the basis of capitalist society".

And again on page 5: "This society has no need of a repressive military apparatus to perpetuate itself; it does not need to be a police state. All it has to do is to get the individual in it to accept as their ends, the ends of the system itself profit accumulation, the acquisition of private property, etc.; to accept, in other words, the war of each against all. The education system is perhaps the most important means by which this process "interiorization" is carried on. Rarely, if ever in this University, will you be offered ideas that seriously confront the ideas which dominate in the system at large. You can therefore swallow these dominant ideas and the system they represent, or you can vomit both up and refuse to take part in anything whose implications and meaning are not despite your requests, made clear to you. In such circumstances, the case for insurrection in the classroom is clear".

Summed up, these views amount to the assertion that society is sick; that it is the Universities' role to change society; but, as a reflection of the sick society, the University is sick so that the whole lot Universities and society need to be changed if necessary by violent means.

The pure Marxist views must he refuted. It is the job of the University to seek the truth to teach the truth and not to be the instrument for changing society. That is the task of politics and politicians whom the University can and must train (and of aspirant politicians one gets the impression that there is no shortage in the Students Association).

This is not to say that there are not enormous ills in society which cry out for rectification. Most academics are not only aware and concerned about them but the accent in the subjects which they teach and the special skills and techniques they possess are usually directed towards those improvements which can be effected in society. There are even many academics (and I count myself amongs them) who support strongly developments towards a society in which the major accent is placed on the provision of collective needs such as education, health, welfare and equality of opportunity etc. rather than the provision of more private goods and services and the teaching and researches of these academics are directed towards this end.

But, equally, wise men are aware that there is a limit to the rate of improvement in a society or in its institutions a limit set by the very nature of man himself—which is not likely to be changed by violent and revolutionary amendment in the system of government or administration wherever or whenever it occurs.

Violence can destroy but we cannot begin again from the beginning and only reason, humanity, and a sense of perspective can preserve what is good from the past and upon it build something better in the future. It is much easier to destroy than to conserve and easier to conserve than create.

Because it is so difficult to be creative, it is not surprising that student politicians' views (such as those in this handbook) are nowadays rarely characterised by the sort of constructive and creative criticism which could be so valuable to the University in its present situation.

For many of the problems which students find in the University such as inaccessability of staff, large classes, inadequate staff and student accommodation, inability to provide new courses and new and improved methods of teaching these and many more are all a reflection of the serious inadequacy of finance on which improvement in all these matters depends.

Finance for the University comes from the community and is dependent on its good will. Student politicians may deplore this situation, but deplore it as they will, it is a fact and even student politicians have to face facts. In spite of all the unwitting student attempts to destroy it, there still remains in the New Zealand community a respect and concern for education in the widest sense and a willingness on the part of the community to expand its financial support for the University provided that they are led by responsible, informed and constructive University graduates. But they are not going to be prepared to increase their support for the creation of a disgruntled, disorderly and destructive mob.

So my advice to first year students in reading the Handbook and in their succeeding years here, is that they not be fooled by a number of hypotheses sheltering under the guise of truth hypotheses about society and the University, asserted with characteristic hot impatient certitude and which appear to provide you with all the answers before you or the hypothesisers really know what are the questions and without recognising that to some questions there are no answers.

Fools and knaves can be found on both sides of a contention and the wise student will start immediately to learn how to discriminate between those of his leaders who are phoney, self-interested demagogues on the one hand; and those real leaders who are really concerned about the University and who show in their utterances that they have learned to leaven the lump of inveterate prejudice and indiscriminate slogan making with a little reasonableness, sense of fun and even humility.

I conclude with the observation that the second half of the Student Handbook, unlike the first, has served first year students ill. They deserved more from their student leaders than to be handed another little Red School book.