page 9

Vice-Chancellor Taylor: 'as sensitive as the next man'

Salient: Could you start by telling us something about the forthcoming Commonwealth Universities' Conference?

Taylor: Well, as from today, there's no South African or Rhodesian Univerities going.

Or Rhodesian?

Yes, that came through on the BBC news this morning.

Well that's news to me. I'd only just heard about the South African withdrawal. How did you react to that?

Well, I had my mind quite made up that it was wrong for the invitations to the South African Universities to stand. But I was in two minds about Rhodesia. It seems to me that they are doing their best, or that University is, and the question is whether you acknowledge the difficulties they're working under, or whether you just have a blanket rejection. I think that was my difficulty there.

Do you think that the African universities should have a role in trying to breakdown the racist structure of their countries and the universities themselves? In other words do you think they should have a political role?

Well, now that's a difficult one. I think if they're true to their principle of admission being free of colour, creed etc. etc., I think they should do whatever they can to oppose legislation that would prevent that, just from the very nature of the university.

But how far should this go?

Ah, well you see, that's the point. It's awfully easy to sit here in New Zealand and say, we should be out in the streets marching and getting our heads knocked in and that sort of thing. One should be opposing it in every possible way. But to be in South Africa, knowing what the South African police can do, and have done, it's a different kettle of fish.

We would be interested in clearing up the report we wrote on last week's council, which I imagine you be probably read. Would you like to comment on that?

Look I dislike being called a liar. I am not a liar. The impression given there is that we doing our best to circumvent, to delay and delay, so that the delegation would go forward before the issue was settled. I don't know what experience you have of Council but I think its an extraordinarily good Council here in Victoria. Some of us may be balding a bit but I don't think that we're the awful fuddy-duddys that you try to paint us.

What about the details of the sending or not sending of the actual letter.

Well there was this substantial amendment that Walter Scott insisted on having changed so the letter didn't go. I think rightly and properly so.

Could it not have gone before another meeting of Council?

Well, I suppose it could have, but the minutes in the original form, one of the members of our delegation said "Well, I'm just withdrawing, I'm not going to protest". The essence of the change was that the delegates were asked to protest at the presence of South African universities. The essence, as I understood it, of Walter Scott's change, was that the universities should protest. Now that raises doubts as to whether it was appropriate to send the letter anyway, I suppose, if it was simply that the delegates go and protest when they got there. And actually, its no secret, John Smith wrote to me and said that if you want someone to protest why don't you send a student to do it: It's not part of my contract.

Peter Franks called you a liar because you implied or said that the matter was "under continuing discussion

My letter had been discussed.. yes... no I didn't imply that but it obviously was. Now I'll tell you why. Before Neville Phillips as chairman of the NZ Vice Chancellors' Committee went to London I gave him a copy of our resolutions as they stood at that moment. Now he had that in his possession and knew that Victoria was protesting and obviously that information went there. But there was no attempt to lie and it annoys me intensely and I take great exception to that particular account, frankly. You people write rather cruel things at times about people. I'm as sensitive as the next man. I didn't lie and I didn't try to cover up and I've already told you.

The report does say that the ACU had considered the Council's letter.

Now let me explain all this to you. What happened was this; there was a meeting of the Council at which the matter was discussed and as a result I was sent a confidential memorandum from the Vice-Chancellor of Canterbury, saying 'this is how things stand, you must not say anything about it.' Now what was decided was that it was left to the chairman of the ACU Council to consult with the Vice-Chancellors of the South African Universities and the University of Rhodesia and see if he couldn't persuade them to withdraw their acceptances. Now that's what I mean by 'discussion is continuing'. Well I couldn't give Council an account of the things that were in here. And then I was annoyed when the whole damn thing appears on the back page of the Times Higher Educational Supplement so I could have, and not appeared evasive as I suspect people thought I was at Council.

What generally do you hope to gain from the Commonwealth Universities' Conference?

This will probably be the last of the conferences. They've got so big with the number of universities increasing that their usefulness is decreasing. But the important part from my point of view is that the opportunities is taken for, simply, Vice Chancellors to get together after the conference. I suppose we weep on each others shoulders to a certain extent... which is a rather pleasant thing.

I understand that American universities attend as observers?

No, I think one or two of the American universities are asked to send a delegate and such people are invited as Allan Pythor who's the President of the Carnegie Coporation. Well I suppose that we all got the idea that we could nibble a bit of money out of Carnegie. One or two other heads of corporations are invited.

How do you see the role of the university in relation to big business?

Well, Business Administration, Economics, and that area, are valid subjects for study ma university. It's an activity in the community. If there's a demand from you people to learn more about it, I think, it's up to us to provide it. But we should not be in the hands of big business, if you're suggesting that. Quite the opposite. I strongly resist that. But if they're prepared to contribute a certain amount of money we should accept it, so long as it has no strings. This must be always the most important thing in accepting money. Even, for example, Frank Holme's chair, in Money and Finance is partly funded by finance houses and business. But it was made abundantly clear that you paid your money, and took your chances. The characteristic of a university must always be that people have the freedom to say what they like. After due consideration, it must be responsible comment.

Would you like to talk about the role of the University in relation to the government?

Well I'd be happy to, very happy to. I don't know if you realise that I go along with an awful lot of things that you students are saying. At the bottom of the problem is this; we haven't got a penny of our own, it comes from the Government. But the Government pays Victoria University to produce the people they want — social scientists, scientists, teachers, etc. Now if I was to say, now look, the University at the bottom is not really for the producing of degrees, really its role is not this certification thing, then they'd say "Taylor, on your way boy, we don't pay good money for that sort of thing." See you've got to move foward cautiously all the time.

So you do feel that you are fairly much controlled by the Government?

Yes, well in that context we really are. They pay us.

We've got the very distinct idea ourselves that the present Labour Government has no ideas whatsoever of what its going to do with the universities.

Well I think that's healthy. I think they're going through a period of rethinking higher education. And any rethinking is a good thing. What they will propose in the end I really don't know. We had Amos talking to us here, to the Academic Development Committee. He was quite honest about it, he said "Well we're in the period of having taken over government. We haven't thought through all the things we had in mind before coming into power". I can understand this, its a very big subject. What we've got to do is to see all these units in higher education, teachers' college, CIT, Polytech, even the Technical Correspondence Institute is a tertiary education unit; and ourselves, as performing different functions. But there is not a hierarchy. The thing about higher education is that it sees the university as the top, as the big boy. And everyone aspires to go to university. And it may be well for some people to go to university. They may benefit from it, they may be happy here. A lot of people would be a lot better off by not taking any higher education or going somewhere else. But there's this thing, that once you get UE then all the pressures on to force you to university. Now I think a big factor in the leveling off of admissions in the university system at large in New Zealand is the fact that you people are now thinking much more independently. You are saying "Well I might go to university in a few years time but I won't be forced into it" Now this is good.

You think people need qualifications, still?

Well... the sort of world we've evolved depends on these bits of paper. I agree with you, I don't think they're important. But suppose you did want to get a job. Then if you went along and said "look I did a years journalism course at the Polytech and here's the bit of paper to prove it". It just makes life that bit easier. It doesn't mean that you're necessarily a better journalist than somebody that's never taken that bit of paper.