APPENDIX I. UQ: RESISTING TRANSFORMATION FROM ABOVE

"Summary," A Critique of the Proposed Academic Reorganization of the University of Queensland, by the University Reform Group, August 7 1996.

1. REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST:
Unlike the Hay-Brown proposals, previous organizational changes at the University of Queensland were the result of long periods of discussion by a broad cross-section of those involved.

2. THE PROLIFERATION OF RHETORIC:
The language used in the document is consistently vague, and there is nothing that amounts to actual argument. The proposers' reluctance to state principles and argue gives rise to speculation about their motives.

3. "I'M GIVING YOU A DIRECTION . . . ":
The procedures for making "comments"--individual letters written to Professor Brown, the contents of which are not divulged to other interested parties--privatizes discussion. There is no provision for public assemblies or any other form of genuine debate of the proposals.

4. DECISIONS, DECISIONS, DECISIONS:
The argument that a time of "crises" requires diminution of collegial and democratic processes to the point of managerial dominance is invalid. It misconceives the way external crises impinge on institutional life. It makes no distinction between short-term contingencies requiring limited devolution of power to individuals, and long-term situations calling for structural change that must be wise, impartial and widely approved of within the community affected. Democracy is the only formula for the latter. The "mass" character for the post-1960's university is no excuse for managerialism either. Already in the 60's democratic means of coping with this were widely known.

5. BONES OF CONTENTION:

• Discipline and Punish:
  
  The "academic cognacy" supposedly achieved by the rearrangement of departments into the new faculties turns out to be largely a mirage. It reflects, not the changing needs of intellectual life as the boundaries of knowledge shift, but closer integration of academically-based training with the requirements of industry.
  
  
• Power/Knowledge:
  
  The new structure will increase the Vice-Chancellor's power significantly, drawing decision-making authority away from those whom such decisions affect.
  
  
• The Individual That Swallowed the Committee:
  
  Although the Brown paper begins with what seems an even-handed emphasis on "accountable individuals and committees that "advise and consider," any concern with the latter withers as the paper proceeds. The role of collegiality disappears, and it is clear that the Hay-Brown proposal is based on the assumption of an uncritical determinism in which we move towards "Canadian and American models," that is, overt managerialism.
  
  
• From Bad to Worse: The Role of the URPC:
  
  The peak committee for finance allocation and "strategic planning" has been "downsized." Most of those who sit on it represent central administration rather than staff or student interests.
  
  
• Manufacturing Consent:
  
  Attention to the time-scale for implementation reveals that the extreme haste of the whole process makes a mockery of the supposed desire for consultation. Overall, the time period suggests a fait accompli.

6. DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR:
The Vice-Chancellor's notion of the "excellences" of the University focuses selectively on rather external indicators. He seems incurious about the increasing difficulties of classroom situations across the whole range, where the University's commitment to undergraduate education is being poorly met. Hay's university is the "research-based" university of advertising and PR discourse that can be projected "internationally" by its new "President" to the greater glory of each of them.

7. "IT'S A UNIVERSITY, STUPID":
The fundamental objection to the Hay-Brown theory of the university is that it is vague, economic rationalist and clearly indifferent to democratic issues. We believe that democracy is a crucial instrument of the ends of the university. The university's pursuit of knowledge, education, critical power and informed discussion of values, norms and social mores is inseparable from collaborative modes of functioning. This applies not only to teaching and learning situations, but to all the practical and resource requirements that underpin them.

8. "IF IT AIN'T BROKE . . . ":
We agree that the Group system is an obstacle to rational management, but the Faculties should be retained. There should be further discussion about the number of Faculties required, but Faculty Boards must remain democratic, and their Deans elected officers.

9. FEAR AND LOATHING:
If the present proposals go through, the impact on the University community will be disastrous. There will either be tensions as between individuals and groups, or a mentality of resignation will emerge.

10. STOP THE STAMPEDE:
We must demonstrate to the aspiring power elite that, in line with our existing tradition of discussion of major changes, we will not tolerate this process of rushed pseudo-consultation. We insist on the need for a university-wide debate on these issues that affect us all.

Appendix 2
In Ignota Harena: The Global Workplace from Below
Works Cited