FEDERALISM OR SEPARATISM?

New Zealand Listener, Volume 15, Issue 389, 6 December 1946, Page 6

FEDERALISM OR SEPARATISM?

Professors: Speak Their Minds

"The University of New Zealand faces a major crisis," said the Academic Board of the University in its report on University reform, which was discussed by the Senate in Wellington recently. "A crisis forced on it partly by the failure of the conference of college councils as an administrative mechanism, and partly by the inherent weakness of the federal constitution."

that there were two ways out: a strengthened Senate (or committee of the Senate) with power to take over the work of the conference of college councils, and try to make the federal system work. , OR the establishment of four separate Universities with limited charters, and a co-ordinating body, such as a University grants commission, to balance the competing claims for Government support. The Board recommended the second way. The Senate, which met specially to discuss this whole question, set up a joint committee (3 Senate, 3 Academic Board members) to investigate this proposal, but threw out a suggestion that the time had come to set up separate Universities at once. After discussions that went into a second day, the Senate postponed its consideration of the Academic Board’s alternative proposal for a larger Senate with bigger academic representation, until the committee now set up to consider the autonomy proposal makes its report. The question that is now before this committee is not a new one. A booklet brought out in 1911 by the New Zealand University Reform Association, and edited by Professor T. A. Hunter, T. H. Laby, and G. W. von Zedlitz, contained statements strongly supporting autonomy from two distinguished University men overseas. The Rev. A. C. Headlam, Principal of King’s College, London, and a member of the Senate of London University said (in the course of his answer to a questionnaire): "I think that as soon as possible you should try and secure that the four constituent Colleges should become independent Univers:ties . The whole idea of a University means the creation of d certain type of life and atmosphere, and that is quite impossible if you have four colleges separated from one another by some hundreds of miles .... A Federal University is never a success. Not long ago inquiries were made by the South African College on the subject and in all cases except Wales the answers were unfavourable to any sort of Federal scheme. As a matter of fact Wales is not a real exception for the University works in many ways exceedingly badly and is only kept up by the dishonest sentimentalism which characterises the Welsh nation." Professor R. C. Maclaurin, an Aucklander who was one of the foundation professors at Victoria University College and at the'time of writing was Presi- ‘dent of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said: "It was probably wise to adopt your present system in the T Board went on to say

early days when the standards of the university were wholly undetermined. The conditions, however, have been wholly changed and your system is now antiquated..... I see little hope of a satisfactory solution of your problems unless a radical change is made in the constitution of your University. The colleges should be given ‘degree granting power’ (effectively if not nominally); and until this is done you are merely toying with a ser.ous problem. You need not fear a lowering of standards; the college that tends in this direction will pay the penalty as it does in all other parts of the world." Since this whole question of University reform is one that pefsonally concerns a very large number of young New Zealanders-more, at this time of huge enrolments, than ever before — "The Listener" has asked for some opinions from competent authorities in each of the four centres. First of all we print a short summary of the events that have led up to this "mayor gpa given to us (with apologies for s abbreviated style) by DR. J. C. BEAGLEHOLE (Lecturer in History, Victoria University College. Author of "A History of the University of New Zealand") : HE University of New Zealand was born in the last years of provincialism, when hatreds were in some ways at their worst. The bad fairies hovered amorously round the infant’s bed, and they have never ceased to hover. There were two foundling acts-the New Zealand University Act 1870 and the New Zealand University Act 1874. Otago got in with the first, hoping its university would be the university for the country, as, at that time Otago was the richest province. The second, after a lot of dirty backstairs work, provided for an examining university on the London medala university that was just a Senate and an office, arranging for exams and handing out degrees. All the teaching was to be done by "affiliated institutions," whose teachers were on no account to examine. Practically anything could be an affiliated institution, from the University of Otago to tenth-rate secondary schools. C.U.C. came in as an affiliated institution, then A.U.C., when founded, then V.U.C. There were always vigorous critics of th's system, and it was heartily condemned as early as 1879, by the first Royal Commission on the University. Its recommendations were ig- nored. Professors acted as crammers for exams: set by overseas examiners appointed by Senate. Staff had practically no say in control of either the Senate (one or two did, and lost their souls) or the individual colleges.

There was no co-ordination of teaching in the colleges, except that they all had to teach the same syllabus-I mean, no attempt to specialise in different things at different places. Everybody had to teach everything, but the great struggle started as to who should have the "Special Schools." Otago took medicine and mining, Canterbury engineer-ing-then, later on, there was intrigue and ganging-up (South Island v. North Island for a long time) resulting in duplication, sometimes under cover of wangles (e.g., engineering in Auckland). Both Auckland and Canterbury had Schools of Forestry-and they both broke down. Massey was a compromise out of two schools of agriculture at Auckland and Wellington, and so on. There was never any planning ahead, or judging questions on their merits. But it was the keeping of university teachers out of control of examining and academic administration, control of courses, etc., that caused the University Reform Movement in 1908. The Royal Commission they demanded wasn’t set up till 1925-it reported that the University of New Zealand offered unrivalled facilities for gaining university degrees, but was less successful in providing a university education; rotten administrative organisation, part-time student system abused, libraries hopelessly inadequate, etc. It recommended setting up a federal university and saw four separate universities as far off in the future. The Act for this was passed in 1926, but made no provision for real power in the centre or proper full-time administrative officer-Vice Chancellor-with real authority.. The thing broke down immediately as a federal university through the refusal of different colleges (except, I think, V.U.C.) to play fairthe old dirty work, stabbing in the dark, etc., kept on. The thing was kept going even as well as it did simply through the administrative genius of Hunter, who didn’t believe in it anyway. The University Conference set up a few years ago as an effort to get an all-over plan and plan ahead — broke down again through the inability to. cooperate, the wish to put a fast one over, get to the Minister first and so on (e.g., Otago and the Medical School).

The Federal University was never given a chance to work. The Examining University broke down under the weight of examinations, and internal examining had to be introduced, to get it done in time for the next year’s work. Note: a bad thing is not reformed because it’s a bad thing, but because it just don’t work any more — the last ditchers fight till the world rolls over on them. An Examining University and a Federal University having both become impossible, what then remains but to try Four Separate Universities? There never has been enough money to run.a proper. university-though there never has been as much money as the Government is handing out now. The Government by old standards has been astonishingly generous. But a terrific amount more is needed. But the future must depend partly on the centres, not just the Government. Will the old provincialism be seen in a competition of noble generosity between Auckland and Wellington, Otago and Christchurch? One can but make the suggestion to City Councils and others who are interested in humanity. SoS ee ee SP eee we eee ee ee ee es Pee Ss

A. K. TURNER (a member of the Auckland University College Council and of the Massey Agricultural College Board of Goyernors) : THINK that the change is inevitable, but just how soon it will come about is another matter. I am of course now expressing only my own personal views and not those of the governing bodies of which I am a member; there may in fact be many of ny colleagues who. will disagree. The change-over will take time-too rapid a transition could be dangerous; but we should now be making some preliminary surveys and contemplating the first steps to be taken. Independence is the very life-blood of University institutions and any step which will increase the independence of Univeristy Colleges must be in the right direction. Let us look for a moment at how the present federal system works from the academic point of view. A professor, say, in chemistry, ur in classics, may have a brilliant and original mind and be a stimulating teacher. Such a man is probably an enthusiast in some particular branch of his subject-let us say in the problems of physical-chemistry or in the archaelogical side of Latin. Most people will agree that if such a man is attracted to one of our University chairs he should be encouraged to impart his knowledge and his enthusiasm to those who are fortunate enough to sit under him. But

he may find that the syllabus as laid down by the New Zealand University pays no regard to the special topics on which he is an ‘authority, and before he can alter the syllabus he must secure the agreement of his colleagues in the other University centres. This is sometimes difficult, sometimes impossible; and an opportunity is lost of attracting to the college in question students possibly from all parts of New Zealand and Australia, who would like to reap the advantage of this man’s special knowledge. There is the syllabus, and the professor must teach to it or else his students will fail in the (federal) examinations. The result

is that too often the professor is reduced, by being forced to teach on topics that do not interest him, to mediocrity born of boredom. Of course there is something to be said on the other side and any change would have to be gradual and subject to proper safeguards. If it is true that a brilliant and original teacher may be

frustrated by the present system it is equally true to say that a lazy \and capricious one is kept up to the mark by it. A student who sits for the federal examination of the New Zealand University is at least protected in sdme degree from unfair marking and from unfair papers, and particularly in the senior scholarship and honours stages it is very important to see that degrees are awarded with complete objectivity. The present system goes a long way to ensure this, and I think that from the point of view of the examination candidate it may be desirable for some considerable time to retain some form of examination system short of complete internal examination by a single college professor. The New Zealand University or one of its committees may possibly long continue to act exercising functions similar to those of the British University Grants Committee. Then there is. the question of the agricultural colleges. The future of these would form a special problem. I myself am not inclined to favour the evolution of the agricultural colleges in the measurable future into full University colleges; I think their functions as specialised institutions are too important to allow their energies so to be dissipated. But a consideration will have to be devised into which they fit-it may be that they will still remain within the New Zealand University after all their elder brothers and sisters have left the family home.

PROFESSOR J. PACKER (Professor of Chemistry) and DR. H. N. PARTON (Associate Professor of Chemistry, Canterbury University College) : HE federal university has survived in New Zealand, not because it is a sound institution, but because it has had the services of able administrators who have striven mightily to overcome’ its weaknesses. The effort this has needed would have had far greater results, educationally, if it had not been expanded in overcoming difficulties which should not exist. We think the only sound plan for reform is to establish four separate universities. ; It is true that some of the reforms necessary to raise the level of university education can be made within the present federal framework. In fact, we believe many will be made. We have largely tid ourselves of overseas external examiners. They personified that suspicion of the teaching staffs which has been a regrettable characteristic of New Zealand education in the past. They were justified by the illusion that they "kept up the standard." We believe that the standard of the degrees is determined by the calibre of the staffs, and that in our own subject and in others, internal examining has raised the standard. We can, no doubt, get greater freedom in teaching and examining, without abolishing the Federal University. Why, then, abolish it? In the first place, if it is largely stripped of its examining functions, the New Zealand Univérsity will have few functions left. The important ones can be carried out by bodies much smaller than the present Senate. The broad framing of policy and the allocation of Government grants could be in the hands of a Grants Commission. General coordination of the policies of the four independent universities could be obtained through a committee of the academic heads. .

Then there are some positive advantages which separate universities might reasonably be expected to provide. Freedom in designing courses and experimenting with teaching methods would be greater than under the best possible federal system. Specialists would be able to teach their specialities, and at the university level, this may be expected to achieve greater educational resfilts than if they have to spread themselves over the whole subject. Some limitations would be essential, notably to prevent the wasteful multiplication of professional schools. Important as they are, and obvious as their contribution to the community is, through the provision of professional training, these schools are not the whole or even the most important part, of a university. We believe that a major contribution to New Zealand’s future would be made by a university which decided to make its specialty the development of post-graduate research. We think the most important task of a university is the training of students in general fields, rather than technicians in particular fields. With four universities in existence, one might very well specialise in this way, developing post-graduate work in the fundamental disciplines of the arts and science faculties. It would have no difficulty in attracting a firstrate staff.

We think, then, that separate universities should be established, and that the transition period should be short.

PROFESSOR G. W. Von ZEDLITZ (one time Professor of Modern Languages, Victoria University College, and a former member of the Senate) : HE administration of the University in New Zealand is absolutely unique, because not only do laymen make up nearly the whole of the governing bodies of the four university colleges, but they are also in the majority on the Senate, which handles the purely academic side of University affairs. It is good that there should be an admixture of non-academic men in the supreme governing body, and that is done in the "red brick" universities overseas, but everywhere else there is a sharp differentiation of function, the governing body has no powers whatever over the curriculum; and the representation of the academic staff is always large, and often in the majority on the governing body.

Yet they say the patient often recovers after all the doctors have called his case hopeless; and though the authorities may agree that we have the worst possible system, yet it does seem to work satisfactorily. And I’ve always had the impression that the chief reason is the excellence of the raw material. But the average adult New Zealander is a great disappointment when you think of the youthful promise there was, and it may be that a system that has been condemned by all the authorities has something to do with that-it’s on the cards. "The question now is, whether the the time is ripe for a change. We always used to think we would have to wait until some other howling anomalies had been removed. "The great obstacle before, to having four universities, was the lack of money to make them worthy of the name. But now, with the phenomenal increase in numbers-which I don’t believe will stop -and far more people with money to spend on higher education, I think it could be done."

PROFESSOR IAN A. GORDON (Professor of English, Victoria University College) : HE University of New Zealand has never been a University. After efforts at reform stretching over years, it is still a filing system and a series of rubber stamps. It does not teach; it has no cor porate life; its students feel no warmth or loyalty towards it; its teachers have no final voice in its destiny but must await the decisions of the Senate, a governing body of laymen. To me a university is a community of scholars, both young and old, bound together in the pursuit of knowledge by the complementary activities of teaching and research. It has a corporate life and both staff and students feel such affection and loyalty towards it that they often work more than forty hours per week within its walls. In this sense (and there is no other sense worth considering) there are universities in each of the main centres and (within their more restricted field) in the agricultural colleges. The problem in New Zealand is how to make university education the satisfying and enriching experience that is characteristic of the best universities all over the world. The simplest way in which this can be done is to give teacher and student conditions that will make (continued on next page)

ONE UNIVERSITY, OR FOUR?

(continued from previous page) their labours fruitful to themselves and of value to the community at large. I know of no university where it is more difficult for the university worker to put his ideas and specialised abilities into practice. It takes two years at the minimum to introduce a new book or a fresh item of study and a change becomes effective only after what the vicechancellor has called "the whole ramshackle machine" of administration has ground to an end. What should be done? There are two possibilities, Separate universities could be set up, going their own ways and developing the potentialities of their staffs and their individual areas, and the University of New Zealand could quietly pass out of existence. If the University of New Zealand is to remain, . its stranglehold on academic policy must be relaxed, by incorporating more academic members into the governing body and by making the organisation ,of prescriptions, examinations, degree courses and the like the direct responsibility of the academic staff. Either course would have the result that the University institutions in the various centres would develop individuality and independence, subject only to the world-wide traditions of university education and the national needs of. the Dominion. Separate universities, I think, is the real solution. The only problem is whether we should separate immediately, or have a transition period during which we are in fact separate, but in name are members of the University of New Zealand. So far as the members of the Academic Board are concerned the shorter the transition is the better. PROFESSOR F. W. MITCHELL," (Professor of Education, University of Otago): HE pursuit of knowledge, as of freedom, is a fundamental characteristic of the human spirit and needs no justification in_a modern world. Neither do the specialised institutions dedicated to this vitally important, exacting and highly skilled task-the universities. Consequently, the merits of the case and the evidence of history justify the highest possible measure of freedom to the universities, and the principle of university autonomy is rarely questioned. Differences may arise, however, in regard to the conditions under which it should operate, and the forms of organisation best suited to its proper functigning. In particular, the question of federation or separation has been prominent in this country from the very beginning and is once again in the forefront. But the question is limited and deals with the manner in which university autonomy is to work, and its solution lies in organisation rather than principle. The guiding motive in determining the right kind of organisation should be that of finding the means most suitable to fulfilling the aims of university life. ‘The idea of a federal university is not new, nor is it in itself objectionable. The universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, Toronto and Wales have developed successfully under it. But its operation under New Zealand conditions has been marked by difficulties and deficiencies. The federal university tends to be complex, inaccessible, and slow moving, and the relationships of the Senate to the life

of students and staff tend to lack vitality and intimacy. It is" generally conceded that a non-researching, non-teaching university concerned mainly with the conduct of examinations cannot possibly be a living, stimulating influence. The need for maintaining standards is generally given as an argument in favour of federation, but a uniform standard is not necessarily a high one. Indeed, a small autonomous .university generally seeks to safeguard its reputation by high standards, and. recent experience of autonomy in examining Stages I and II seems to justify its extension. The administration, of the Special Schools raises special difficulties. Under federation they tend to become dissociated from full participation in the university life of their particular centre to the detriment of all, but safeguards would also be needed under separation. The record of history shows there is ample room. for improvement. in , the present system, and suggests, general agreement in favour of eventual separation. But. how soon, and in what way this. can best be done is a matter for those who thoroughly understand New Zealand conditions, for I am not im a position to judge. The time is ripe for the progressive development of autonomy in the colleges within the existing framework, in preparation for the time of their eventual separation into independent but coordinated units. F. H. SAGAR (Lecturer in Physics, Auckland University College) : O divide the University into four autonomous universities with limited charters would bring about the following immediate benefits: — 1. The administration of each college becomes a local matter. It is now flexible and elastic. Necessary changes can quickly be made, while local needs can be considered and met. 2. Greater freedom in teaching may be enjoyed. Examinations can be made subservient to teaching instead of the reverse as in the past. With each teacher his own examiner, other means of assessing a student’s ability are available; thus the main function of a written examination is now to encourage a student’s powers of thought and expression. Gone would be the days when a teacher’s first anxiety was to equip each student with a definite body of examinable knowledge. 3. With éach departmental head now able to decide his own syllabi, research and teaching will go together. The effect on the teacher himself must not be minimised. To preserve vitality and to maintain interest in his subject, he must enabled and encouraged to do research. If he does this, then in turn the student is more likely to become interested and to be inspired to do good work. : yr 4. University aims and ideals can now be more closely allied to the life of the community. Provincial pride, freed from suspicion and jealousy, can be harnessed effectively when each main province has a university of its own to cherish and support. To bring the community into immediate contact with university control and administration, representatives of civic and provincial bodies can be elected to university controlling councils. And local industries can help financially to support the departments which undertake applied research on their behalf. |