Universities have always been the home of youth activism. Numerous valiant causes have found their roots in the dedication and resourcefulness of students. But one could be forgiven for not knowing precisely what the latest series of demonstrations held across Victoria University have been about.
These protests have been held by a group named ‘We are the University’. They oppose changes and cutbacks to a number of University departments, such as the School of Political Science and International Relations; reject voluntary student membership; and want to sack Pat Walsh. The main cause of grievance is a perceived lack of transparency and consultation between the University administration and the student body. This is fair.
The issue is, however, that the methods by which this group has expressed its views have been antagonistic. It has jeopardised the ability for any real progress to be made in reaching a workable solution between the University and students. Considering the emphasis ‘We are the University’ places on consultation, it is strange that they have ignored so many opportunities to engage with the University. They did not attend the special council meeting on tuition fees, nor did they address the Academic Board the day after their ‘occupy the University’ meeting in August. They have disrupted meetings rather than participated in them, preferring to write a vapid letter to Pat Walsh than make an evidence-based submission to the University. It is nonsense to complain that the consultation procedures are a “farce” when one hasn’t been bothered to engage with them. It almost seems the organisation is more interested in having protests than getting things done. That is disappointing.
Almost no attempt has been made to work alongside VUWSA and Salient, both of which are organisations better placed to ascertain the concerns of all students. VUWSA, for instance, has representatives in 94 per cent of classes. It was not until organisers Amanda Thomas and Sam Oldham responded separately to a published article last week that there was any attempt to begin a formal dialogue with students via Salient.
Nonetheless, ‘We are the University’ claims a mandate from the whole student body. This seems dubious considering their Wednesday meetings have consisted of around 30 people. Their Facebook page has around 200 ‘Likes’, and features threats of violent retribution directed at the Minister of Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce. It is heavy partisan undertones such as this, as well as counter-productive protests, that alienate a large portion of the student body who might otherwise agree with the group’s fundamental message. There are few better ways of antagonising the administration and undermining one’s cause than by storming the Hunter Building, sitting in the Vice-Chancellor’s office, and writing a list of ‘demands’. Perhaps ‘We are the University’ could better describe themselves as ‘We are the Medium-Sized Collective of Students Who Have a Reactionary Tendency Against Authority and a Predilection for Protest’. It doesn’t have the same ring to it, but at least it’s accurate.
The group’s repeated demands for the dismissal of Pat Walsh suggests that if the current Vice-Chancellor is removed from office, all of these problems will be solved. This is ignoring the wider pressures placed upon Pat Walsh and all tertiary providers throughout New Zealand. The budgets of tertiary institutions are increasingly limited by the current Government’s education policies—specifically, the Tertiary Education Commission’s capped funding scheme. The reality is that tertiary institutions have to strike an ever more difficult balance between fees and course offerings, and it is misdirected to blame this on one individual. Let’s be honest: there is no vast conspiracy in the administration to bring about the “death of tertiary education”. Compromise with regards to fee rises and restructuring is essential in the current tertiary funding environment. To achieve this, we need to begin a conversation with them, rather than shouting at them.
‘We are the University’ are right: without the students, the University is nothing. But if we do want the University to be more responsive to the desires of students, there are other more inclusive, more productive and more positive ways of doing so. We can do better.