news
campusreview.com.au
Too big to fail?
How likely is a failing university to
be bailed out by the government?
U
nlike banks such as Lloyds and the
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), failing
UK universities won’t have it easy if
they’re near collapse. Announcing this at
Wonkfest – a higher education festival in
London – Sir Michael Barber (pictured), the
head of the UK higher education regulator
Office for Students (OfS), said bailing out
universities would be “inconsistent with the
principle of university autonomy and is not
in students’ longer term interests”.
“We will not step in to prop up a failing
provider,” he said, adding that pledged
bailouts would “lead to poor decision-
making and a lack of financial discipline”.
Barber’s warning comes as UK student
numbers have fallen, possibly due to fee
hikes and changes to student visas, and
international student arrivals have flatlined.
So, aside from Barber’s reasons, why
bailouts for banks but not universities?
Although individual higher education
institutions aren’t economic linchpins, they
do substantially contribute to economies.
In 2014–15, they contributed 1.2 per cent to
the UK’s GDP, and created nearly a million
jobs. Yet, as student debt surges, their public
dividends are being called into question.
University stakeholders were irked by
Barber’s comments. The University and
College Union urged its members to write
to their MPs about the matter.
Potential job losses aside, “do the regulator
and minister really want to voluntarily reduce
our country’s intellectual, social and cultural
capital?” asked Matt Waddup, the union’s
‘Total waste of taxpayer money’
Government’s freedom of speech review slammed.
R
ecently, responding to the government’s announcement of
a review into freedom of speech on campus, the Council of
Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) came out on blast.
“There is no threat to free speech on university campuses,” it
asserted in a statement. “We are concerned that conservative
commentators have stirred an uproar over a non-issue in order to
attack universities.”
Universities Australia was more circumspect in tone, but not
content. “In this context, it is unclear what issue the government
head of policy and campaigns.
“Michael Barber’s comments demonstrate
just how out of touch those in charge of our
universities really are,” he said.
“You don’t protect students’ interests by
bringing about the demise of their local
university. It would not simply be a case
of students moving to another university if
theirs were to experience financial trouble.”
So we know UK universities could
collapse without reprieve, but what about
Australian ones?
TEQSA, like OfS, has no powers to
enforce a bailout in any case (the education
department would be responsible for this),
but what about in theory?
Its chief executive, Anthony McClaran,
was rather equivocal: “Our work as a
risk-based regulator seeks to identify and
then mitigate risks to students – including
financial risks to providers. TEQSA then
works with providers to ensure that there are
measures in place to address the risk. When
necessary, we’ll use regulatory powers to
make sure this happens.”
It therefore seems that Australia, unlike
the UK, would seek to prevent a university
from ruin. ■
is seeking to address,” UA chair Professor Margaret Gardner said,
pointing to the fact that VCs met last month and reaffirmed their
commitment to freedom of speech, in principle and in policy.
CAPA, again, was more forthright on the government’s motivations
for the review: “One would think that the government had learnt its
lesson in not listening to the bleatings of a loud and unrepresentative
few. However, [Education Minister Dan Tehan] has legitimised the
false narrative of attacks on free speech by ordering an inquiry.”
Gardner espoused a similar view: “Some commentators on free
speech at Australian universities have been very wide of the mark
– jumping to the wrong conclusions or selectively quoting from
university policies and codes. These same conclusions would not
meet the threshold test of academic inquiry – informed by evidence
and facts.”
CAPA provided the example of a UWA incident from earlier this
year. Transgender sceptic Quentin Van Meter was booked to speak
at an event at the university. Following student protests, the university
cancelled the event, citing logistical issues. However, the Australian
Family Association, which organised the event, accused the university
of prohibiting free speech.
Yet, in slamming the review as “contrived, pointless, and a total
waste of taxpayer money”, CAPA rejected accusations of free speech
suppression on campuses.
“CAPA strongly believes in the right of students to organise and
express their views. We disagree that this type of expression is
preventing free speech of more conservative views; rather, it is a way
of engaging and arguing against these views.
“It is concerning that Minister Tehan is leading Australia ... into the
culture wars.” ■
7