Editorial: Academic freedom threatened

A number of things about the country's universities clearly irk the Government. Most publicly, it has made no secret of its wish to discourage duplication and to divert students into science and engineering degrees. To its way of thinking, the courses offered by universities should be aligned to national development priorities. Regrettably for that point of view, this ambition, and any others, are compromised by the Education Act 1989, which enshrines the principles of university autonomy and academic freedom.

Those principles underpin one of the most highly regarded of university roles, both here and internationally. Only with them intact can universities serve as the critic and conscience of society. They rightly guard this independence jealously. When it is perceived to be threatened, there is the strongest of reactions. The sort of response that now has the Vice-Chancellors Committee accusing the Government of being a "control freak".

It is not drawing too long a bow to tie the committee's perception to the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. The main aim of this legislation is to give the Government greater control of Crown entities. It achieves this by more clearly defining such organisations. Of concern to the universities is that they are numbered among these entities and are, therefore, regarded by the Government as state-controlled. The Vice-Chancellors Committee says ministerial control will, consequently, be strengthened in many areas. Among other things, it could lead to university council members being deemed responsible to, and able to be dismissed by, the minister responsible for tertiary education.

The Government, for its part, says the bill is all about transparency and accountability in relation to taxpayer funding. That sentiment would carry more weight were it not for the fact that public money contributes just 42 per cent of university income on average. This, in itself, contradicts the idea that universities fall within an orbit that opens them to state control. Most importantly, however, the bill threatens to override the principles enunciated in the Education Act.

Previous Governments have respected the act's dictum that autonomy and academic freedom "are to be preserved and enhanced". They appreciated that a university's independence was too precious to be prejudiced in any way by Government directives. Thus, for example, Government appointees have always been a minority on the councils that regulate university affairs. At one stroke, however, the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill renders those principles vulnerable to interference.

Appeals by the Vice-Chancellors Committee for universities to be excluded from the bill have proved unavailing. The Government appears set on reining in certain practices. This is the latest of a series of steps to control the tertiary-education sector, previously evidenced by the likes of the fee cap in last year's Budget. Almost without exception, those steps have been ill-advised.

The universities fear this new move could give the Government leverage to stifle unfavourable views and research. That, obviously, must not be allowed to happen. Equally, it is pointless for the Government to be in the business of directing universities to produce more scientists and technicians - and fewer law and arts graduates. University councils, and students themselves, are intelligent enough to recognise skills that are in demand, and to organise, and attend, the appropriate courses. In a competitive market, universities that do not meet this demand will soon find their stocks falling. They do not need to be told what to teach, and that certain disciplines have become surplus to national requirement.

Academic freedom is too fundamental to a democratic society to be tampered with. When the interference is based on flawed premises, the folly is complete. Tertiary institutions must be dropped from the public finance bill. Only control freaks could think otherwise.