Busting myths about proposed division cuts

Hundreds protested against proposed cuts to the University of Otago humanities division in August. University of Otago vice-chancellor Prof Harlene Hayne is pleased people feel strongly about the university, but says myths are getting in the way of the facts of the matter. PHOTO: PETER MCINTOSH

On August 15 of this year, I celebrated my fifth year as vice-chancellor of the University of Otago. It is a job that I feel privileged to hold. Like many people who work here (as I have done since 1992), I feel a loyalty to this university that is second to none. Since becoming the vice-chancellor, I have made it my job to learn the proud history of the university and every day I contemplate its future.

As vice-chancellor, I have also come to understand how important this university is to the city of Dunedin. We are the city's largest employer and our staff and students make a valuable contribution to the cultural fabric and economic success of the city. In turn, the amenities and the lifestyle provided by the city help us to recruit the best and the brightest staff and students to Otago.

The special relationship between the university and the city often means that when something important happens at the university, there is extensive commentary in the press, including from interested members of the public. Although we welcome this dialogue, a number of recent letters to the editor and opinion pieces on changes in the humanities have been riddled with inaccurate statements and sometimes wild assertions. I understand and accept that the authors of these letters and opinion pieces had nothing but good intentions. There is no doubt people are entitled to their views, and it is pleasing so many people feel so strongly about the university that they seek to be heard, but accuracy is also vital.

My observation is that three myths have taken on a life of their own. I would like to explain the facts.

Myth 1: The proposed changes at Otago are due to Government underfunding of the humanities; the university is bending to political whim and has no long-term commitment to humanities.

Fact 1: Although I regularly lobby Government for increases in funding for humanities (and commerce for that matter), the current problem is not due primarily to Government funding. It is due to a steady decline in the number of students who have chosen to study humanities over the past six years. That decline, of close to 20%, is part of a broader trend of declining university humanities enrolments that has been observed nationally and overseas.

At Otago, staff numbers in humanities rose to match increasing student numbers in the last period of sustained enrolment growth, but they have not dropped in response to more recent enrolment decline and this year alone, there is a gap of several million dollars between the division's income and its expenditure.

That gap is currently covered by cross-subsidising humanities from other areas. Although cross-subsidies are always occurring between different areas of activity at Otago, the level of cross-subsidy that is required to support humanities in its current form is not sustainable. The changes we are working through are designed to bridge this financial gap and put the division back on a path to a highly successful and sustainable future.

Myth 2: The proposed changes in humanities threaten the university's role as critic and conscience of society.

Fact 2: Although academic staff in humanities make an important contribution as critic and conscience of society, Otago's commitment to this statutory obligation is not restricted to a single academic division. Every day, academic staff from all four of our academic divisions rigorously challenge current thinking and public policy in science, health, education, politics, economics, etc. In the past week alone, readers of the ODT would have seen Prof Kurt Krause's (health sciences) discussion about anti-bacterial soap and Prof Janet Hoek's (commerce) discussion about the value of plain packaging for cigarettes.

Our annual staff community service survey has consistently found that, in any given year, more than 90% of our academic staff, coming from all four divisions are active in service, which is where our role as critic and conscience of society finds its clearest expression. About 60% of these staff will have provided comment to the media in their areas of expertise, about 80% will have given lectures, talks and presentations to non-university groups, about 25% will serve on government advisory boards and committees, and more than 50% will contribute to community issues or projects.

Myth 3: The current changes are being driven by university bureaucrats who know nothing about humanities.

Fact 3: Again, nothing could be further from the truth. My first degree is a BA. Had things been slightly different, I would have been a history major as an undergraduate. The pro-vice-chancellor of the division, Prof Tony Ballantyne, is an Otago humanities graduate and a world-recognised humanities scholar. There are proud Otago humanities graduates throughout the university's senior leadership team, and on the University Council, too. Collectively, we care deeply for the humanities, and want to see this important division thrive over the next few decades. But to achieve this goal, the division needs to be financially strong and sustainable. Despite the proposed changes, we have no plans to close any humanities programmes. In 2017, the division will offer more than 120 first-year papers and students taking a BA will continue to be able to select from more than 40 majors.

I hope this information helps clarify our situation and what we are trying to achieve. I understand that the leadership of this university is not above public criticism, but when criticising the current process in public, it is important to get the facts straight.