I would like to devote this space to outlining some of the reasons why I belong to the relatively new movement on campus known as We Are the University. Principally, I have chosen to be involved with the project out of rational choice.
The administrators of VUW, led by Pat Walsh, continue to implement policies that radically change the provision of education by this institution with little or no real consultation with students. Most of the cuts are being made in the Humanities as part of an international trend towards the corporatisation of universities. The crisis is the subject of a recent paper released by academia.edu, focusing on “the close relationship between the crisis in the humanities and the corporatization of higher education, and the deep political significance of that relationship. For the humanities, and the related set of disciplines known as the liberal arts, are so essential to democracy that an attack on the former is an attack on the latter. Democratic political culture cannot exist without the humanistic disciplines of history, philosophy, literature, rhetoric and so on. Running colleges and universities on a business model, focusing on profit margins as the primary objective of higher education, is a serious threat to the foundation of democratic societies.” The threat is real. Last month’s termination of two valued papers in the subject of International Relations at Victoria has reduced the discipline to a training programme for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and cuts to Criminology have devastated the quality of the major here. These ‘changes’ to our education, to use the euphemism of our detractors, do represent a process of dying education, as they represent only the most recent offensive in a sustained attack against critical thought.
We Are The University exists to promote discussion and action against threats posed to higher education in New Zealand by Government and university bureaucracies. Given that the administrators of VUW have shown that the ‘student consultation process’ in the form of written submissions is redundant, we have been looking at other ways to express our opposition to their policies of higher fees and corporatised education. Angry, militant protest action is not an illegitimate means of effecting political change. Struggles won through popular protest include those against slavery, apartheid, segregation, the war in Vietnam, and the list goes on. The Arab Spring should serve as a further example.
We have to understand that there is a time for dialogue and compromise in all circumstances, but when dialogue fails, new means of resisting illegitimate authority must be developed and employed. We must also understand that there are times when the interests of social groups conflict, and dialogue alone will do nothing to change that. Major corporations tend not to be in the habit of granting decent wages and better work conditions out of goodwill; workers win these rights by striking, demonstrating, occupying. In the same way, we cannot expect governments, public servants and students’ associations to represent the interests of students unless students themselves are willing to fight for them.
The most rational thing people can do is understand when their interests are threatened and take a logical approach as to what can be done to resist the threat. If dialogue has consistently failed, then the next step must be taken, and to promote dialogue alone, as a recent Salient opinion piece and guest editorial have, defies reason. Protest has worked here at Victoria; it saved the Film School in 2008. Please, if you have grievances concerning our tactics, I invite you to become involved in the group and be a part of the discussion. To do nothing and accuse us of being unreasonable is unfair and unhelpful.