Universities Are More Than Instruments of Government Policy
Like so many of my generation, I was the first person in my family to go to university. In one way or another, though, universities have played a big part in my life. I was an undergraduate at Victoria and Auckland Universities, then a postgraduate student at Balliol College, Oxford, then later a Fellow and law don at Worcester College, Oxford, a Visiting Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, a Council member of La Trobe University, Melbourne, and finally Vice-Chancellor of Waikato University, back in my own country.
That long acquaintance with those august institutions has reinforced in me the belief – virtually a given in democratic countries – that universities are centrally important to the new thinking, and the challenge to the existing order, that are essential characteristics of free societies.
It is no accident that universities are one of the first targets of repressive tyrants across the world. Universities, in other words, are not only exemplars and champions of the freedom to think – their own academic freedom must always be defended because it is always on the line.
As was famously said, perhaps by Thomas Jefferson, though precisely by whom is often disputed, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. Whoever first said it matters little; the warning is plain enough. Universities everywhere must always be quick to recognise the attempts made by dictators and even, on occasion, democratic governments, to shackle those who dare to think outside the approved parameters.
In a democratic country like New Zealand, universities do not on the whole face direct challenges of that kind. But they must always be alert to new challenges, which can sometimes come in unfamiliar guises.
The threat today is not so much from direct and deliberate assaults from governments, or even from the private sector, though it must not be assumed that these are things of the past. The modern threat arises from the growing and central role that universities are increasingly invited, even required, to assume, as virtually instruments of government, in promoting economic development.
It is argued across the political spectrum and from all parts of the economy that our economic future increasingly depends on the research effort undertaken by our universities and on their role in producing graduates with the skills needed to promote economic growth. Any supposed failures in these respects are severely lambasted by ministers and others.
This view of their role is in some respects congenial to the universities, since it affirms their value to society and appears to guarantee at least an approximation of adequate funding. But the argument comes with an unstated but potentially damaging downside – that this is what universities are essentially about and that it is only if they meet those expectations that they will be supported and funded.
The danger then is that universities will find themselves compelled to follow particular paths to particular outcomes or, in other words, to give priority to what government demands of them. They might then be tempted – so as to maintain continued public support and funding – to go along with the inviting but dangerous assumption that their only true value is as instruments of economic development. They would thereby seem to accept a barely recognised but increasingly damaging constraint on their freedom to pursue knowledge for its own sake – and we would have significantly misread our own intellectual history.
The great seminal idea that has underpinned the whole concept of human progress since the Renaissance is that knowledge is unlimited, that the search for knowledge can be undertaken by anyone (and not just by the rich and powerful), and that it usually involves a voyage into uncharted waters. Some of the greatest advances in human history have come about, unexpectedly, as a result of enquiring minds.
If universities were to limit themselves only to those voyages whose destinations were identified in advance, this would mean not only a significant constraint on academic freedom but would close the door on some of the most exciting and rewarding contributions that universities are able to make across the board to the total well-being of our society.
Here’s my suggested New Year’s resolution. If we want universities to “think for New Zealand”, let us insist that they have the freedom to do so.
Bryan Gould
6 January 2017
Standing Up for Ourselves
As he prepared to take over from John Key as Prime Minister, Bill English made a candid – and disarming – admission. He felt that there was an important part of his new responsibilities where his knowledge was deficient and he needed to learn fast. The deficiency was, he felt, in international relations.
His admission was a welcome sign of humility and a refreshing change from the hubris of his predecessor. So, it is somewhat surprising that, so early in his premiership, he appears to have authorised a foreign policy initiative that could not help but be controversial.
New Zealand’s joint sponsorship of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s decision to promote new Israeli settlements in the disputed territories occupied by Israel following their victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 was bound to create repercussions.
It was President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who were the main targets of Israeli anger – they had failed for the first time to use the US veto to protect the Israeli position and did so on the stated ground that they feared that any other decision would jeopardise what is often described as the “two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli dispute – but it is not surprising that New Zealand’s role, too, did not pass unnoticed.
It is not my intention to venture into what is an extremely complex issue. But what is, I think, worth noting about the New Zealand action on this occasion is what it tells us, if we are lucky, about the readiness of Bill English and his new government to think for themselves and to act accordingly.
New Zealand successfully promoted our candidature for Security Council membership on the ground that we were beholden to no one, and that we would look at each issue on its merits. The decision to promote the resolution concerning the Israeli settlements was a signal that we remain true to those undertakings.
It is also of course a reaffirmation of our belief in the importance and value of the United Nations (pace President-elect Trump) and of our respect for international law. The resolution we sponsored was remarkable only for the fact that it was passed, when its many predecessors had always fallen victim to the use of the American veto.
Its terms have been supported by the great majority of UN members and are confirmed by most international lawyers. But, from a New Zealand viewpoint, its significance goes beyond the detail of the particular issue, important though it is, because it augurs well for our readiness to stick to our guns and to face down, when appropriate, disapproval from our friends as well as our (hopefully few) enemies.
What we need, however, is not just a promising start but a consistent and steadfast determination to stand up for what we think is right and not to be bullied. The challenges to this stance will, after all, keep on coming.
And, sure enough, the next one is already upon us – this time in the field of international trade rather than politics. But this time, the omens are not so promising.
There is every reason, it seems, to take seriously the complaints of our domestic steel industry that they are being seriously disadvantaged by Chinese dumping of steel in our market, at a price below, by virtue of export subsidies, the domestic Chinese price; many other countries have had cause to make similar complaints.
Our government’s predictable and legitimate response was to launch an inquiry as a prelude to action being taken by the World Trade Organisation – but that response was immediately met by a Chinese warning of trade retaliation.
The government – Bill English’s new government – has now produced legislation to extend the conditions that must be met in order to prove dumping, in an apparent attempt to water down the protections that our steel industry is entitled to expect. That legislation, which the Opposition has declined to support, is for the time being stalemated in the commerce select committee.
What we need now, in the face of threats from a powerful friend, is more of the spirit shown at the United Nations, and less of the cravenness shown by the Key government over, for example, the Saudi sheep deal. The new government has more to do if it is to earn its spurs.
Bryan Gould
31 December 2016
As he prepared to take over from John Key as Prime Minister, Bill English made a candid – and disarming – admission. He felt that there was an important part of his new responsibilities where his knowledge was deficient and he needed to learn fast. The deficiency was, he felt, in international relations.
His admission was a welcome sign of humility and a refreshing change from the hubris of his predecessor. So, it is somewhat surprising that, so early in his premiership, he appears to have authorised a foreign policy initiative that could not help but be controversial.
New Zealand’s joint sponsorship of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s decision to promote new Israeli settlements in the disputed territories occupied by Israel following their victory in the Six-Day War in 1967 was bound to create repercussions.
It was President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, who were the main targets of Israeli anger – they had failed for the first time to use the US veto to protect the Israeli position and did so on the stated ground that they feared that any other decision would jeopardise what is often described as the “two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli dispute – but it is not surprising that New Zealand’s role, too, did not pass unnoticed.
It is not my intention to venture into what is an extremely complex issue. But what is, I think, worth noting about the New Zealand action on this occasion is what it tells us, if we are lucky, about the readiness of Bill English and his new government to think for themselves and to act accordingly.
New Zealand successfully promoted our candidature for Security Council membership on the ground that we were beholden to no one, and that we would look at each issue on its merits. The decision to promote the resolution concerning the Israeli settlements was a signal that we remain true to those undertakings.
It is also of course a reaffirmation of our belief in the importance and value of the United Nations (pace President-elect Trump) and of our respect for international law. The resolution we sponsored was remarkable only for the fact that it was passed, when its many predecessors had always fallen victim to the use of the American veto.
Its terms have been supported by the great majority of UN members and are confirmed by most international lawyers. But, from a New Zealand viewpoint, its significance goes beyond the detail of the particular issue, important though it is, because it augurs well for our readiness to stick to our guns and to face down, when appropriate, disapproval from our friends as well as our (hopefully few) enemies.
What we need, however, is not just a promising start but a consistent and steadfast determination to stand up for what we think is right and not to be bullied. The challenges to this stance will, after all, keep on coming.
And, sure enough, the next one is already upon us – this time in the field of international trade rather than politics. But this time, the omens are not so promising.
There is every reason, it seems, to take seriously the complaints of our domestic steel industry that they are being seriously disadvantaged by Chinese dumping of steel in our market, at a price below, by virtue of export subsidies, the domestic Chinese price; many other countries have had cause to make similar complaints.
Our government’s predictable and legitimate response was to launch an inquiry as a prelude to action being taken by the World Trade Organisation – but that response was immediately met by a Chinese warning of trade retaliation.
The government – Bill English’s new government – has now produced legislation to extend the conditions that must be met in order to prove dumping, in an apparent attempt to water down the protections that our steel industry is entitled to expect. That legislation, which the Opposition has declined to support, is for the time being stalemated in the commerce select committee.
What we need now, in the face of threats from a powerful friend, is more of the spirit shown at the United Nations, and less of the cravenness shown by the Key government over, for example, the Saudi sheep deal. The new government has more to do if it is to earn its spurs.
Bryan Gould
31 December 2016
Who’s to Blame?
The Bank of England’s chief economist, Andrew Haldane, has had the good grace to admit that the Bank’s forecast of the likely economic consequences of Brexit – that consumption, employment, share values and economic activity in general would fall – was, at least in the short term, mistaken. The British economy, since the Brexit referendum, has prospered and has out-performed most other developed economies.
In making his mea culpa, he acknowledged that the error had further weakened confidence in the economics profession, but it is not only economists who must shoulder the blame. There was no shortage of establishment voices – business leaders, media commentators and politicians in particular – who issued similar ill-founded warnings; remember George Osborne’s need for an “emergency budget” in the event of a decision in favour of Brexit?
In reality, Andrew Haldane did no more than concede the truth of what had already become apparent. But the interesting aspect of his admission is not the fact that he made it, but the explanation for the error that he offered.
The experts, it seems, did not take into account the “irrational behaviour” of those who live in the real economy, rather than in one of those economic models so beloved of economists. If only people had reacted to Brexit as the experts thought they should, the forecast would have passed with flying colours.
Let us pass over for the moment the irony that what was supposed to be an admission of error on the part of those who claim to know best became the vehicle for, yet again, shifting the blame for the error on to those who were supposedly too stupid to listen to what the experts told them and to know what was expected of them.
It is nevertheless worth pausing for a moment to unpick the convoluted logic employed by Andrew Haldane to explain what went wrong and presumably endorsed by those many others who are used to being taken very seriously on important matters.
The starting point, it seems, is that those who know best were agreed that Brexit would be an economic disaster. At this stage of the argument, facts and rational analysis were apparently not needed to validate this position. It was enough that they said that it was so – and they were then able to construct a whole supposedly “economic” forecast on the basis of this rickety and insubstantial foundation.
It was then assumed that this consensus on the part of the important people – those who just knew, whatever the arguments, that we must belong to a particular economic arrangement called the European Union (not the “Europe” to which we have belonged from time immemorial) – would be listened to and acted upon. It therefore followed that, in the event of a pro-Brexit vote, the British people would be so alarmed that they would lose all confidence in their economic future, and their reaction would produce such a downturn in economic activity as to validate the initial projection as to what would happen.
This circular process, where it was not the prediction itself but the response to the prediction that was at issue, was no more than an exercise in picking oneself up by one’s own bootstraps. The British people, however, failed to react according to the script.
Perhaps they were not impressed by a perennial deficit in our trade with “Europe” in manufactured goods, or by an unstoppable inflow from “Europe” of cheap labour, or by the prospect of further concessions to meet the interests of major corporations at the expense of working people.
Perhaps they sensed that they had lost what has long been an essential part of the British heritage – the power to govern ourselves – and that it had been lost to a hegemonic continental power which, parading as “Europe”, was in reality a direct successor to many earlier attempts to establish just such a hegemony.
Whatever the explanation, the fact is that they have so far reacted positively to Brexit when the experts said that they would pull in their horns. The lesson we should learn is that experts are valuable when they deploy their expertise accurately – but postulating an a priori position and then seeking to validate it retrospectively on the basis that – true or false – people will believe it and act upon it is not expertise but charlatanry.
Bryan Gould
7 January 2017
Can We Be Pro-Brexit and Progressive?
Jeff Sparrow in the Guardian (2 January) allows a thoughtful article to be vitiated by an error familiar to all readers of that esteemed organ – a mindless lumping together of those who voted for Donald Trump on the one hand and for Brexit on the other, and branding them all as bigoted and racist. “Progressives”, on the other hand, (defined by implication as those who voted for neither Trump nor Brexit) now need, he argues, to recapture the agenda so as to help the benighted souls who were led astray by the hateful doctrines of the right.
One of the reasons for the failure of the “progressives”, he says, is that they did not register the genuine and understandable grievances of so many who felt that they had been ill-served by the democracy in whose name so much had been promised. The left, he says, needs to re-discover the concept of progress, so as to turn that dissatisfaction into more constructive channels.
One can only say “hear, hear” to that – but some of us were there long before him. We represent a body of opinion whose existence is virtually ignored and denied by mainstream media – so obsessed are they by the need to stereotype both those who agree with them over Brexit and those who don’t.
We have the temerity to assert that the issue of Brexit or not should have been analysed from the outset in the terms advanced by Jeff Sparrow – that the question should have been all along as to whether the way we organise our affairs (and that necessarily includes EU membership) has been fully serving the interests of ordinary people.
Instead, the debate has been dominated – and still is – by those who insist on a convenient polarisation. According to them, ranged on one side are those who are said to have the good sense and purity of spirit to recognise the nobility of the European ideal – not to say the attractions of European culture, food, music – and for whom the day-to-day challenges for some of their fellow-citizens of making a living and bringing up a family are a mere distraction.
On the other side are those who have been encouraged by right-wing demagogues to attribute the harsh realities of their lives to malign forces unleashed by our European involvement, so that the political choices we make domestically are exonerated.
There is no room in this polarised debate for those who argue that the good times enjoyed by a minority over recent years – by virtue of a globalised economy (of which the EU is a subset) – have been bought at the cost of an increasingly difficult struggle for many others, and that the economic and social consequences for those others of EU membership cannot be absolved from responsibility for their plight.
There is, in other words, a “progressive” analysis of EU membership which does not rely on the ignorance and prejudice exploited by the right, but which does not shrink, either, from an analysis of the EU that identifies some of its inherently anti-democratic, pro-capitalist and “free-market” characteristics.
It is, of course, precisely those characteristics that have manifested themselves in the lives of so many pro-Brexit voters. We cannot expect those voters to overlook the impact of those characteristics in favour of the “finer sensibilities” of those who have done well, when that impact includes the decimation of British manufacturing and a perennial trade deficit which together have led directly to the loss of jobs and a more general job insecurity, an inflow of cheap labour which has further threatened job security and wage levels, and a sense that democratic control over their lives has been lost or is at least ineffective.
These impacts are not accidental, but eminently foreseeable – and therefore intended. The EU is consciously an “intervention-free” zone, deliberately created to hand power to unelected bureaucrats so that market forces and powerful corporations are allowed free rein without intervention from elected governments. There can be nothing less “progressive” than to overlook this in the name of the “European ideal” and then to castigate those who register and bewail what they have lost – democracy and self-government – as bigots and ignoramuses.
If we are really to embark on a new progressive agenda, as we surely must, we must have the courage to identify what is and has been wrong and therefore must be changed. It is not an auspicious start to characterise the “progressive” stance as that held by those who have all along prioritised their own sense of intellectual and cultural superiority over any attempt to grapple with the real and practical issues – not least as a consequence of EU membership -confronting so many of our fellow-citizens.
There are many who abhor all that Trump and his British equivalents stand for and who nevertheless understand that EU membership has served primarily the interests of the haves, not the have-nots. If we really want to re-establish the “progressive” agenda, we could do with less castigating and more listening.
Bryan Gould
3 January 2017.