>John Bale wrote:
>>Is this attachment a sign of things to come - any clues from 'this 
>government'?
>
>>>This past Wednesday, Premier Harris addressed a summit on
>>>the future of the universities. On that occasion he said
>>>that he sees little value in academic degrees in the
>>>humanities, geography (NOTE), and sociology, in which "The
>>>graduates have very little hope of contributing to society
>>>in any meaningful way." (Globe & Mail, Nov. 21, Toronto
>>>Star, Nov. 20)
>
>John.
>This sort of stuff seems to be a defining characteristic of right wing
>(-ish) governments.  I seem to remember Thatcher and her pals saying
>similar things in the past.  As for the present UK labour government, I
>think the jury is still out ...
>Christopher Ray
>Newcastle

As Christopher Ray points out in response to John Bale's query about 
Ontario Premier Mike Harris's comments about the 'value' of social 
sciences, this kind of economic rationality is a common underpinning of 
contemporary neo-liberal rhetorics.  

Of course, Harris is not the first to enunciate this kind of neo-liberal 
anti-intellectuallism; As Chris observes, it was common in the Thatcher 
years.  It was also enunciated very clearly by Ralph Klein, Premier of 
the Canadian province of Alberta, who himself was drawing upon the 
'radical' variant of neo-liberalism developed by/within the New Zealand 
Labour Party and their friends in the NZ Treasury (with much theoretical 
reliance upon the Chicago school of economics) .  In the 1980s the NZ 
Labour Party, and particularly a group of New Right cabinet ministers led 
by Roger Douglas, implemented a massive shift to the right in social and 
economic policy in NZ.  Given the almost complete lack of checks and 
balances in the NZ State apparatus (no house of lords like in UK, or 
senate as in Canada, Australia or USA) it is arguable that they went much 
further in dismantling the welfare state than Thatcher was ever able to 
do.

In 1987, the NZ Treasury set its sights on 'reforming' education, with an 
extensive briefing document submitted to the returning Labour Government. 
 Subsequently, there have been quite massive shifts towards the 
commodification of tertiary education in NZ.  For those interested in 
following some of these developments, a colleague and i have written 
about them in a paper called "Market metaphors, neo-liberalism and the 
construction of academic landscapes in Aotearoa/New Zealand", recently 
published in the _Journal of Geography in Higher Education_.

More recently, the neo-liberals in the current National party government 
(New Zealand's rough equivalent of the Conservatives in UK, Republicans 
in US, and Reform in Canada), as well as those in Treasury and the 
Ministry of Education, have launched a new attack on Tertiary Education 
with a _Tertiary Education Green Paper_.  Although these options have not 
yet been decided, and there is no guarantee the government will be 
successful in implenting them, the Green paper stipulates a number of 
rather frightening 'preferred' options for the governance and funding of 
tertiary education in NZ.

First, the state wants increased participation, but will cut per student 
funding significantly.  Fees will go up and student subsidies will drop.  
This is a continuation of existing policy which has already seen dramatic 
decreases in per capita funding, and therefore significant increases in 
staff workloads.

Second, the government hopes to abolish the current University Councils, 
with elected membership from student, faculty and community 
constituencies.  They will be replaced with much smaller appointed 
boards, membership of which is decided on the basis of 'business acumen'. 
 The rationale for this move is that universities are currently 
unaccountable to government, and that certain members of council (read: 
'faculty') have 'captured' the process for their own selfish interests.  
One obvious way to read this move is that it is an attempt at direct 
state intervention in tertiary education, with significant negative 
implications for universities' abilities to fulfil their statutory role 
as 'critic and conscience of society'.  The underlying basis for 
decision-making about university courses and programmes will be 
'financial viability'.  (of course, we all realise that that is a 
necessary part of present systems, but we also know that there is 
allowance for those programmes that are not 'financially viable' via a 
complex system of cross subsidization).

Third, university funding will 'follow' students in the form of a 
'voucher' system, which will make it virtually impossible to undertake 
long-term planning.  Moreover, it will make explicit the commodification 
of qualifications in a highly competitive tertiary education 'market'.  
The rationale for the voucher system is simple (and simplistic, of 
course), it is a way of implementing a 'market' in tertiary education , 
which -- following the internal logics of neo-liberal economic 
rationalism -- will 'ensure' QUALITY in education via competition.  Take 
from that what you will.

Fourth, research funding is to be changed to a competitive system.  It is 
possible that research will no longer be directly connected to 
undergraduate teaching, thus undergrad degrees could be 'delivered' by 
institutions (both public and private) with no research capabilities 
whatsoever.  Only those universities with post-grad programmes (grad 
programs for those of you in US and Canada) would be required to have 
staff who are 'active researchers'.  If present 'competitive' research 
funding (via our national "FOundation for Research in Science and 
Technology" [FORST] or "Marsden Fund") is any indication, then almost all 
social science, humanities and arts research would never be funded under 
this scenario because it does not meet criteria of 'utlility' to the 
'nation's strategic needs'.  

Finally, the governemt wants to implement a 'level playing field' for 
both 'public' and 'private' tertiary education 'providers'.  They would 
do this by implementing a capital charging system to 'tax' the capital 
'assets' (buildings) of public universities.  One outcome, of course, is 
that private providers will skim profits by 'capturing' all the 
financially viable courses and programmes.  Those less-popular -- but 
nonetheless 'vital' programmes -- would have to be taught by public 
institutions, who would bear the significant 'costs' associated with such 
programmes.  Government has already instituted a National Qualifications 
Authority (NQA), which is in the process of trying to implement a 
'seamless' tertiary education system.  The idea behind this is that 
students can transfer across institutions (say from a public university 
to a private provider, back to a public polytechnic.  Universities will 
no longer offer 'degrees', but instead, we will be just one of a number 
of providers of tertiary 'qualifications'.  A PhD will be a 'level 8' 
qualification, and it would be 'equal' to any other 'level 8' 
qualification...

If these proposals in New Zealand worry you, they should.  It is very 
clear that New Zealand has become a 'Model' amongst the OECD member 
states for its neo-liberal 'reforms'.  Roger Douglas has been to Canada 
and other states many times to advise on implementation of regressive 
Goods and Services Taxes, and many OECD member states have sent 
representatives to NZ to see the 'reforms' in action.  Alberta Premier 
Ralph Klein attributes his drastic public sector cuts and 'reforms' to 
the New Zealand 'model'.

So, what do we do about this as critical geographers?  Certainly, we can 
write submissions to government, and some of us are quite active in that 
regard through our national staff union, the AUS.  I imagine the same is 
the case in the UK, Canada and Australia.  I'm not sure about other 
states...

Perhaps a more immediate intervention we can engage in is to try to 
contest these kinds of neo-liberal rhetorics where they seem to be most 
effective -- with students, colleagues and friends (and they are 
effective -- I often find myself complicit with their reproduction).  
Certainly, I make every effort to contest the kind of 'market metaphors' 
that pop up quite regularly among colleagues.  We need to exorcise this 
kind of economic rationality from all the documents that we produce as 
both 'scholars' and 'administrators'.  Similarly, we can focus on our 
students.  Very early in my 2nd and 3rd year cultural geography class, I 
give a session on the 'culture of the classroom', which discusses the 
commodification and reification of knowledge in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

I'm sure that many members of the forum have developed their own 
critiques of this kind of economic rationality.  I'd be very keen if you 
could share with us some of your own strategies for contesting it.

Thanks to those of you who took the time to read this rambling epistle...

Lawrie



===============================================
Dr. Lawrence D. Berg
Lecturer in Social and Cultural Geography
Department of Geography
Te Whare Waananga o Manawatu
Massey University -- Turitea
Private Bag 11-222
Papa-i-oea/Palmerston North
Aotearoa/New Zealand
Voice: +64 - 6 - 350-5999
Fax:   +64 - 6 - 350-5644
Email: [log in to unmask]
       [log in to unmask]
web:   http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwgeog/ldb.html
===============================================



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%