AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
SIR: Peter Kocan's report (December 2002) saddened but did not surprise. The letter over the signature of Roger Holmes (the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle) and the reported content of his reply to Mr Kocan's letter in response epitomise the twin evils besetting Australia's public universities as corporate bureaucracies: shallow commercialism and an empty, valueless bureaucracy. As an aside: it was heartening to recognise, and see demonstrated, in Mr Kocan's response the intellectual rigour which those of us working in the academic third of university staff know to exist amongst our colleagues and in the postgraduate student community.
The letter over Professor Holmes' signature, almost certainly authored for him by the university's version of the business manager, marketing manager, international officer or publicity officer, is testimony to the university's abdication to the cant of commerce. Internally inconsistent and hypocritical, the letter tramples roughshod over the very principles it purports to protect: bring us those who have spoken their minds and the university, in the name of tolerance and the civil society, will punish them. No mention of course of process or justice or tolerance as a two-way street. This letter has nothing to do with civility or respect or tolerance; its purpose is to protect market share, to ensure that the university's product is not damaged in the target market.
And in answer to Mr Kocan's question: whites, Americans, Anglo-Saxon heterosexuals and others will have similar crocodile tears shed over them by university management when they become the target market for full-fee-paying students.
It is no coincidence that the university's letter was written when Australian universities are shifting their marketing ...