Rob Campbell, a Junior Lecturer in Economic History, comments:

As a staff member who took part in the production of "Handbook", I find it encouraging that a conservative such as Professor Philpott recognises the necessity for the middle class to refute the 'pure Marxist views' therein. It is even more encouraging that the Professor gives no sign that they are able to do so.

Professor Philpott claims that far from trying to change society, it is the job of the university and its members to seek 'the truth'. Between these extremes there lies the task which the Professor Philpotts of this world set themselves in practice. That is the active participation in the development of policy in this country. Our criticism is not so much of non-involvement, but of involvement on the side of reaction and maintenance of the present form of society.

Change for whom?

That is why Professor Philpott's criticisms must themselves be seen as inherently political criticisms, the more so because he and his ilk are far more ready to attack left-wing participation in changing society, than they are to attack themselves or their colleagues who advise the ruling elites of the Third World how to oppress their people and destroy their society. One need only to mention people close to his own discipline such as W. W. Rostow, architect of Vietnam policy, or M. Friedman, economic adviser to Barry Gold water.

There is, at any rate, a distressing shortsightedness in Professor Philpott's divorcing of the search for truth from active participation in changing reality.

"Handbook" itself quoted Mao Tsetung on this matter: "Only through personal participation in the practical struggle to change reality can you uncover the essence of that class of things and comprehend them". The choice facing the university is not change versus non-change, but in which direction shall we change, who shall do the changing, and in whose interests shall we change.

Professor Philpott claims 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'. While an economist who introduces the ideas of 'institution' or 'man' into his analysis is welcome, Professor Philpott appears to be pre-Freudian in his psychology and pre-Marxist in his sociology. There is not only a limit to the rate of improvement but a limit to the extent of improvement possible under capitalism. At any rate, on the world scale which capitalism does operate, the phenomenon to be explained and considered is not improvement but impoverishment. The nature of man, unless one is a Christian or an economist, is a concept which is dependent on the limitations of a society.

Look around you, Professor

Professor Philpott claims in his review that the taxpayer would be happier if we were producing 'responsible, informed, and constructive University graduates' rather than a 'disgruntled, disorderly and destructive mob'. If the latter is Professor Philpott's idea of what produced "Handbook" I suggest he start looking around him for the trouble, and not downwards at the students at his feet. Two of the three editors of "Handbook" are fellow staff members, as were two of the major contributors to the sections you abhor. Hands up, you're surrounded!

What does the Professor mean by 'responsible' and 'constructive' graduates? The terms of his review suggest that only people who are trained to service the machine would fit his description, not those who wanted to change the machine, or perhaps dispose of it. The taxpayer may feel that this sort of graduate is the one who will serve him best, but are the interests of New Zealand workers well served by paying exorbitant sums of money to educate the sons of their employers to become economists or accountants trained to treat them as things rather than men? If workers do think that, then perhaps one of the most urgent tasks of the university is to show them why they are wrong.

Professor Philpott's description of the university's problems illustrate the misunderstanding which characterises staff attempts to analyse the university's dilemma. The problem, as I see it, is not so much the forms (i.e. large classes, accommodation, better teaching methods) as the content. And it is the content of their courses which the academics most steadfastly refuse to submit to critical examination.

Mill once asked whether it was better to be Socrates dissatisfied or a pig satisfied. Professor Philpott appears to believe that he has resolved the dilemma by becoming Socrates satisfied. He should ponder the possibility that in doing so he has helped create a race of dissatisfied people.