Robert van Krieken

Research, writing, translation

Robert van Krieken - Research, writing, translation

Open Letter to Dr Michael Spence about Pyne’s proposed changes to higher education

This is a letter that I have just sent to Dr Michael Spence, the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University, about the de-regulation of university fees.

Dr Michael Spence, Vice-Chancellor
29 August  2014

The Pyne Higher Education proposals

Dear Michael,

I am writing to express my concern about the way in which the prospects currently facing Australian universities are being portrayed in the public debate, but most especially by yourself as the representative of the University of Sydney, in Senate discussions, in the media and in your account of the Town Hall suggested by Senate. My apologies for the length of this letter, but the issues are complex.

You’ve said on a number of occasions that the current system of funding universities is ‘unsustainable’, but coupled to the idea of fee de-regulation in a way that suggests that deregulating fees is the only way to restore sustainability. The basic premise seems to be that a demand-driven system, with significantly increased student enrolments, necessarily requires only one possible change to the funding system: allowing universities to set their own fees at whatever level the market will bear.

This suggests that fee deregulation is a solution to a problem. However, this is to misrepresent what is actually going on in the government of Australian higher education. I think it’s misleading to represent what the students were saying in the Town Hall as reducible merely to the practical problems surrounding exactly how university education is to be financed.

Fee deregulation is not the solution to a problem, it is in itself the pursuit of a particular aim, the complete marketization of as many aspects of Australian society as possible, as far as possible. It is ideology dressed up as fiscal responsibility, it is the IPA’s agenda, and it has been part of the Liberal Party’s agenda since David Kemp first attempted to deregulate fees in 1999, with Andrew Norton being its vociferous champion ever since. Earlier in this discussion our colleague, Professor Colm Harmon suggested that Christopher Pyne must have loftier aims, ideas and convictions than merely saving money. Indeed he has, and they revolve around aiming to organize as much as possible of Australians’ lives around the market, around thinking entirely in terms of private and individual costs and benefits, and around destroying utterly the concept of the public or collective value of anything – in this case, university education.

The intellectual foundation for this approach to universities, which has as much of a presence in the ALP as it does among the Liberals, can be seen most clearly in Andrew Norton’s Graduate Winners, the Grattan Institute report published in 2012. Norton reduces, as he has since The Unchained University in 2002, all the public benefits of higher education to the private return to graduates in the improvements to their future earning capacity. He’s basically sceptical about the whole idea of public benefits, but in the end it doesn’t even matter for him, because he’s confident that students will be so willing to pay ever-higher fees, that those public benefits will be generated anyway. University fees in this perspective operate as a cunning kind of taxation: you get university graduates, over time more and more of the population, to pay for the public benefits that ought to be covered from the public purse, so that those funds can be used to give tax breaks to the very wealthy and global corporations. Increased student debt? Not a problem, as long as they keep coming through the doors. Make no mistake, the aim of Norton and those inspired by him is to reduce Commonwealth support for universities as close to zero as soon as politically possible, to produce a completely marketized system of higher education. The clue is in the consistency with which Norton and Pyne praise the virtues of market dynamics, paying no attention at all to the discussions of how badly suited the market model is to the specific character of higher education. The opening of the door to private providers is a central part of this vision. In a revealing comment, Tony Shepherd said that it’s mere historical accident that tertiary education is provided by organisations like universities, and it follows from what he’s said that there’s no reason, other than sentiment, why they shouldn’t disappear altogether, to be replaced by the Walmart University.

You’ve also said, in justifying your approach, that you think it’s unfair for the university education of the children of wealthy families to be subsidised by children from families with less well-off backgrounds, and that this is the equity and fairness principle underpinning setting higher fees, offset by bursaries and scholarships. However, the concept of ‘subsidy’ being applied here is wholly misdirected, in two senses. First, it’s like arguing that because wealthy people pay the same amount as poor people for their newspaper, or their gas supply, or their internet connection, this means that poor people are subsidising the wealthy in all those areas. Although it may capture an aspect of the nature of economic and social inequality more broadly, it has no relevance for the setting of prices. Its relevance lies in completely different arenas, most notably taxation. Just as it doesn’t mean that the rich should be required to pay more for their internet connection because they are rich, it also doesn’t justify wealthy families paying more for their children’s education at the same university, sitting in the same seminar rooms, being taught by the same academics.

Second, the idea presumes that parents contribute to their children’s university education costs, that this is where the ‘wealth’ lies, rather than in the hands of newly-entered students, who rarely possess a portfolio of shares and investments. The fact is, however, that families, on the whole, don’t pay for their children’s university education: roughly 90% of university students do not receive such support from their parents, accumulating the debt themselves. The majority of Australian parents feel that their financial obligations to their children, in relation to education costs at least, end when their offspring leave school. The whole concept of ‘wealth’ that actually runs through the policy discussions refers to the prospective wealth of ‘graduate winners’, to use Andrew Norton’s ugly phrase, in their future employment, not to the background wealth of  students’ families.

It’s disappointing, then, that the debate appears to have lost sight of the philosophical and intellectual aims of these changes. As Margaret Thatcher explained in a moment of frankness, albeit grammatical constipation, ‘Economics are the method, the aim is to change the heart and soul’. What changes to the heart and soul of Australian universities are being pursued here? You seem confident that we will be able to retain all that we regard as valuable about university teaching, learning and research, but I have to say I can’t see the basis for such confidence, and neither could most of the students at the Town Hall.  Insisting on how committed one is to particular values and principles is all very well, but the salience of that is significantly undermined if at the same time one is supporting systemic changes that undermine those very values and principles.

The view that was being articulated at the Town Hall meeting, and that isn’t reflected in your portrayal of it, was that we need to re-assert the public value of universities, as well as the idea that such value should be financed publically, not privately, precisely contrary to the inclinations of all Australian Commonwealth governments since the 1980s. I don’t know if it’s true that frogs placed in gently boiling water don’t realize they’re being cooked until it’s too late, but it’s an accurate enough analogy for the situation Australian universities find themselves in now. We have been very slow to raise our voices against the systematic re-construction of tertiary education as an entirely private good, perhaps because we’ve been misled by the fact that it characterizes both major parties to a greater or lesser extent.

But it is the public value of university education that needs to be returned to the centre of the debate, and addressed, instead of being made unthinkable in favour of generating supposed problem-solutions that are in fact the core aim of the whole exercise. I would suggest that it’s simply not enough to be content with observing, as Belinda Robinson has, that Australian governments are ‘disinclined’ to invest properly in universities and that this is why we should support fee deregulation. It ought also be possible to show a bit of backbone and defend the case for precisely that adequate public investment in higher education, so often trumpeted as so essential to the nation’s future economic development.

You’ve said that you think the public debate to date hasn’t been very sophisticated. My own view is that it would enhance the University’s reputation enormously if it played a role in bringing these concerns back into the debate, including your own contributions to it, and I, together with a number of the other Senate Fellows, would be grateful if you would give these observations your considered attention.

Regards, Robert van Krieken

Submission to Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 25 Nov 2012

1. I am grateful to the Royal Commission’s Secretariat for this opportunity to provide commentary on the establishment of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. My background is in the history and sociology of childhood generally but also child welfare in Australia, and I have researched the legal and administrative contexts of the removal of Indigenous children from their families, in relation to the structures and policies of Australian child welfare agencies more broadly. I have also spent some time in Ireland where I became familiar with the various enquiries that have taken place there, and I believe there are some useful lessons that can be learnt from the Irish experience.

2. My main comment relates to the concern identified in the Consultation Paper to ‘identify what public and private organisations and institutions should do to prevent child sexual abuse from occurring’, as well as ‘what should be done by organisations and institutions when allegations are raised’, and possibly to examine ‘the need for changes to any laws, policies or practices within institutions, organisations and government agencies to better prevent and respond to child sexual abuse. The aim, then, is to identify what needs to be done to prevent child sexual abuse, what procedures ought to be in place when allegations are raised, and what policy, legal, administrative or structural reforms might be required.

3. The concern is that in order to achieve this aim, it is important to understand how and why child sexual abuse occurred in public and private institutions in the past, and what has been problematic about the institutional practices and procedures up to the present time.

4. It is clear from the experience so far In Australia but also in the course of the detailed Irish inquiries that what is at issue is as much a failure of organisational culture and institutional design, and it would be unfortunate in the extreme if the terms of reference excluded an examination of that aspect of the institutional abuse of children.

5. In my view, then, it is very important for the Royal Commission to include in its terms of reference an examination of the ways in which:
(a) the systems of management, administration, supervision, inspection and regulation of those institutions, and
(b) the manner in which responsible persons executed their functions
contributed both to the occurrence of the abuse and any deficiencies in the response to the abuse.

6. A clear view of how child sexual abuse is to be prevented and responded to adequately in the future will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to achieve without a well-founded understanding of exactly what it was about the management and organisation of public and private institutions responsible for the welfare of children that made it possible for so many to have suffered such traumatic childhoods.

Internationalizing Sociology

Like the world generally and all academic disciplines, sociology is structured globally in terms of a distinction very roughly, between a core and a periphery, with a semi-periphery lying between them. Often the core-periphery distinction will also be termed the North-South division. The origins of social science lie in the colonial powers of Europe, Great Britain and the United States and its concerns and points of reference remain there today.

The south – Asia, Australia, Latin America – has  been incorporated only as sources of exotic data or as adjuncts to northern knowledge.  Raewyn Connell, for example, observes that contemporary social theory ‘embeds the viewpoints, perspectives and problems of metropolitan society while presenting itself as universal knowledge’ (2007:vii–viii).   Continue reading

The Occupy Movement

These are my thoughts on the Occupy movement, for the revision of the Sociology textbook published by Pearson:

Culture jamming and Occupy Wall Street 

One of the oppositional movements referred to by Klein is culture jamming, described by Christine Harold (2004) as a world-wide political movement which ‘seeks to undermine the marketing rhetoric of multinational corporations, specifically through such practices as media hoaxing, corporate sabotage, billboard “liberation,” and trademark infringement’ (p. 190). Most often this is done through changing an advertisement to reveal what the protestor sees as the true meaning of the ad (sometimes referred to as ‘subvertising’), but also includes other forms of protest, art and political action. The Canadian Adbusters Media Foundation, founded in 1989, describes itself as “a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age”. publishing the activist anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters (http://www.adbusters.org/) has been a prominent player, organizing evgents such as ‘Buy Nothing Day’, ‘Digital Detox Week’, ‘TV Turnoff Week’ and ‘Occupy Wall Street’. Its founder, Kalle Lasn, defines culture jamming as “is the art of creating a new kind of cool” A guiding concept is the importance of aesthetics in influencing how ordinary people think, and this has been mobilised by Adbusters ih the hope that the protests which emerge will “somehow change the power balance and make the world into a much more grass-roots, bottom-up kind of a place rather than the top-down Wall Street mega-corporate-driven system we now have.” (cited in Yardley, 2011) Continue reading

On the celebrification of the university


There has been considerable discussion of the ways in which universities around the world are experiencing enormous pressures, organized around a range of issues including the question of neoliberal strategies of management, the constant restructuring and deskilling of academic labour accompanied by insecurity and uncertainty, tightening financial constraints, the commodification of higher education, a global competitive dynamic which has set in motion a never-ending process of gradually ramping up the expectations placed on university academics, a process with no ceiling and no end. Unlike the builder or the carpenter who can say – ‘that looks pretty good’ – or even the academic who used to be able to say – ‘that was a good book’ – the message now is always ‘hmm….could do better’.

In universities today one can clearly see a number of facture lines that are growing longer and wider, dividing the academic community into, roughly: Continue reading

Celebrity Society: the Economics of Attention

We have an ambivalent relationship to celebrities. We are continuously fascinated by them, spend money on magazines to read about them and allow them to grab our attention in any number of ways. Celebrities are the aristocracy of the 20th and 21st centuries, or at least an important branch of the new nobility. It’s easy to lose count of the number of opinionistas moaning about the ‘cult of celebrity’.

Continue reading

Surrendering to Islamophobia

Both the Wall Street Journal and Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian believe that the recent judgment of a Dutch court that the Dutch MP Geert Wilders is to be prosecuted for inciting hatred and violence against Muslims in the Netherlands constitute yet another ‘assault on freedom of speech’. From their perspective, and Wilders’ own, a bit of muscular controversy is fine, all part of a healthy democracy. The idea that Wilders may have broken Dutch law means, says Albrechtsen, that ‘the tyranny of thought police has truly taken hold in the West’. For the Wall Street Journal it’s even more than that, it’s ‘the importation of Saudi blasphemy norms to Europe’, and ‘no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside’.

Albrechtsen concludes that it is important that Australia learn the appropriate lessons from the Dutch experience ‘before we make the same disastrous blunders’. But have any blunders been made by the Dutch? For anyone who takes the trouble actually to read the Dutch court’s judgment, not to mention paying attention to what Wilders has actually been saying the last few years, it becomes clear how misinformed this interpretation is.

Continue reading

Why the Dutch word ‘allochtoon’ should be abandoned

Both the Dutch Minister of Justice, Ernst Hirsch Ballin and the Minister for Housing and Integration, Ella Vogelaar, have breathed new life into the debate around the problems generated by the peculiar Dutch terminology around migrants – the distinction between ‘allochtoon‘ and ‘autochtoon‘ Dutch citizens.

Officially, according to the CBS, you’re either if you’re born outside the Netherlands, or have at least one parent born outside the country. However, the everyday usage of the term allochtoon tends to stretch to anyone with a non-Western background, giving it more of a racial effect, raising the bar to ever becoming autochtoon, or ‘native’, and reinforcing the ‘natives’ capacity to control who does or does not get recognized as genuine ‘insider’. Paul Scheffer observes the problems associated with this terminology, and although he has used the term allochtoon in the past, he now steadfastly avoids it, using terms such as ‘migrants and their children’ in its place. However, there has been only limited public debate about the question, and when it is raised, there is a tendency for commentators to pour scorn on the idea of changing the terminology by trivializing it, or by arguing that language has its own autonomous dynamics in any case.

As my own modest contribution to the debate, I thought I’d post a fragment from a longer piece that I’m writing which deals with the question: Continue reading

Council of the European Union – Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy

COMMON BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The explanations provided are intended to give direction to the common basic principle. The description is indicative, by no means exhaustive and will be further developed in the future.

1. Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States.
Integration is a dynamic, long-term, and continuous two-way process of mutual accommodation, not a static outcome. It demands the participation not only of immigrants and their descendants but of every resident. The integration process involves adaptation by immigrants, both men and women, who all have rights and responsibilities in relation to their new country of residence. It also involves the receiving society, which should create the opportunities for the immigrants’ full economic, social, cultural, and political participation. Accordingly, Member States are encouraged to consider and involve both immigrants and national citizens in integration policy, and to communicate clearly their mutual rights and responsibilities. Continue reading