to the limits of acceptability.pdf

John Biggs and Richard Davis (eds), The Subversion of Australian Universities
(Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent, 2002).
Chapter 2
To the limits of acceptability:
political control of higher education
William Bostock
Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle observed that humans are political
animals. In a more recent discussion, politics was defined as “who
gets what, when, how,”1 and if we apply this proposition to higher
education, it is clear that higher education is highly political. In this
chapter I will consider a number of examples of how in the exercise of
power policy-makers have pushed universities to the limits of accept-
ability and sometimes beyond. What are the limits of acceptability and
what are the consequences of exceeding them? A useful metaphor sees
a university as a ship2 (an adaptation of the conventional “ship of
state”). I am not going to argue that universities should be or could be
totally exempt from any political interference, rather that, like courts
of law or hospitals, certain kinds of inappropriate interference by
politicians or their appointees are highly damaging to the performance
of the essential tasks of these institutions. For a university to maintain
its standing as a university, it must operate within certain parameters
of academic acceptability; just as a ship must remain within certain
hydrodynamic parameters to stay afloat. Academic parameters are
more difficult to locate, because, unlike ships, universities rarely sink
without trace. Nevertheless, gross breaches of procedure can griev-
ously damage an institution’s standing, with disastrous consequences
for students and staff, present and past, and munity at large. The
Orr Affair was such a disaster, demonstrating the consequences of a
University overturning its keel of acceptability by the inappropriate
action of lay members of its Council and, sadly, some academic staff
members too. The bitter discussion it generated can still injure the