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 39, Number 18, July 26, 1976.

Political Economy Movement at Sydney University

Political Economy Movement at Sydney University.

The Political Economy Conference took place against a backdrop of protest at Sydney University. Protest over the stranglehold of reactionary professors and Vice Chancellor on political power in the university. Two days before the Conference opened there was a big demonstration against the VC's lack of action - two weeks after it closed there was another, considerably more violent one. What is the background to these developments?

Round One

The struggle in economics started in earnest at Sydney in the late 1960s. It stemmed from two directions: the wave of student protest against Vietnam and racism that lead to questions being asked of the economics courses; and the appointment of two new professors in the economics department. This appointment was to revamp the department, revising the course framework (and making it more mathematical)

The revamping, and the arbitrary and authoritarian way it happened, led to quite a protest. A survey carried out by two tutors in 1969 showed a great depth of student feeling agains thte new courses (many were disrupted) and desire for some say in the course material.

The reaction of the Department was hostile. The two tutors were sacked at an early opportunity, in late 1970. Protest was high for a while, but without effective organisation, it soon died down. Round one to the heavies.

Round Two

The quiescense was disturbed in 1973 when a more organised group of students ran a series of lunch-time discussions to consider relevant material. A conference on Radical Economics was also held. Interest was growing.

In the middle of 1973 there was a furore in the Philosophy Department over the introduction of a women's studies course. This was opposed by the Professors of the Department and others in the University hierarchy. Tactics employed in the struggle were important. A strong junior staff group in Faculty, well-coordinated with direct action taken by students (there was a University strike on the issue) together won the day.

Spurred by this example, the economics dissidents got moving. A Day of Protest was held on July 25. It led to discussions on tactics as-well as the alternative content political economy could deal with. Yet, despite the strong voice of students, the Economics 'heavies' proposed no change in their courses for 1974. Round two was a draw.

Round Three

Student members on Faculty moved a committee to investigate into the Economics Department in late 1973. This committee reported back in March 1974."It seriously attacked the professors and university administrators, and recommended political economy courses at all four levels of the degree. It also suggested that the only suitable way of running these courses was in a separate Department of Political Economy.

From the acceptance of this report by the Faculty, a long bureaucratic struggle ensued. Again the tactics of coordinated 'proper channel' action and student demonstrations (including a Day of Outrage on the anniversary of the Day of Protest) were used. Again they worked, this time even better.

Courses in Political Economy at stages one and two were set up, but the Vice Chancellor (who is himself an orthodox page 15 economist) refused to have anything to do with a seperate Department. The intransigent professors grudgingly agreed to the compromise. Round three a qualified victory to the masses.

Round Four

1975 saw renewed strife. One political economy tutor was sacked at Christmas, and others denied promotion or pushed out of the University. Ted Wheelwright, an associate professor and leading political economist was denied the third Chair in economics. It went instead to a little-known mathematical economist, whose credentials were far less impressive.

Staff in the economics department favouring political economy circulated a paper claiming the conservative professors with the Vice Chancellors concurence, could be expected to use their power to undermine the new courses. Such was the power framework.

In the meantime, students flocked to the first year course in political economy. Half the students doing first year economics chose political economy instead. With the many restraints on choice (eg all business and accountancy students are advised to take orthodox economics) this is a major victory. It shows clearly the interest of many economics students in wider issues such as the social problems stemming from production. Round four on points to political economy.

Round Five

This year, 1976, opened with political economy courses, at stages one and two, well attended. However, a large question mark hangs over the students in these courses. There are, as yet, no third year options, and the orthodox economics courses seem to many singularly-uninteresting compared with the political economy alternatives.

Another report, this one to the Academic Board (which approximates our Prof Board) recommended an autonomous 'unit' of Political Economy, right through to Honours Level. This report, again backed up with strong student/staff pressure, was pushed through with even the conservative professors backing it to some extent. However, it was blocked by the Vice Chancellor.

Consequently widespread student discontent fared again. A mass meeting just before the Political Economy Conference (which was addressed by a well-known demagogue from New Zealand) gave the VC two weeks to make up his mind. These demands were backed up by the Conference plenary session.

Three weeks later, with still no decision, another demo was held. One hundred students attempted to force their way into the Vice Chancellor's office. A little damage was done, and police called onto campus to sort out the situation. The VC made some remarks about the demo discreditting the political economy movement. Round five getting more vigorous, with no clear winner.

Where to from here?

The struggle to get more political economy courses must go on. It can only however be successful with the tactics used so well till now - a two line struggle with staff and students pushing for results. The two demands of the demos are "Political Economy now!" and "Staff/Student control".

Yet the confrontation so far has raised interesting questions. Why has a university, supposedly seeking after 'truth', struggled so long and hard against people who wish to challenge the accepted truths? Could it be that Sydney University, as a class institution feels somehow threatened by radical economics?

Reference: Arena 38 (1975)