This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 19 September 2012, At: 19:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Tertiary Education Administration

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe19

Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action

Gavin Moodie

Version of record first published: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Gavin Moodie (1986): Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action, Journal of Tertiary Education
Administration, 8:1, 69-81

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0157603860080106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration
Volume 8, Number 1 May, 1986

Social Change, Social Responsibility

and Social Action
Gavin Moodie*
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

Introduction
This paper considers the implications of recent social change for the social
responsibilities of tertiary educational institutions. The major points are:
• in the 1970s the predominant view of tertiary educational institutions'
social responsibility was that they be efficient and effective, but even this
apparently ideologically neutral view was problematical;
• a broader view of tertiary educational institutions' social responsibilities
now seems to be generally accepted within the system, albeit after
energetic prodding from Governments;
• on this broader view, there are other issues which tertiary educational
institutions have a responsibility to pursue, or at least cannot ignore as
being irrelevant to institutions' purely educational activities.
The paper presents three "worked examples" to explore how tertiary
educational institutions' new social responsibilities may result in social action.

Social Change
If you are created by Governments, it is hard to argue that you are not a
creature of Governments. This has been a difficulty for Australian tertiary
educational institutions ever since the first, the University of Sydney, was
incorporated by an Act of the Legislature of New South Wales in 1850. The
difficulty is compounded if you are largely funded by Governments. It is clear
that, during their first century of existence, Australian universities have been
subject to effective and in some cases detailed Government influence through
their dependence on Government finance if for no other reason1.
Most would accept that tertiary educational institutions have a fiscal
responsibility to Government, that of meeting Government audit requirements
and being reasonably efficient. But efficiency is not value free: it cannot be
applied to tertiary education (or indeed any other complex activity) without the
risk of distorting its intrinsic values. The question naturally arises: efficiency
according to what criteria? If unsuitable criteria are adopted, the activity may be
completely compromised.

* Mr G.F. Moodie is Assistant Registrar (Secretariat) at Deakin University. This paper was delivered
at the 1985 AITEA National Conference.
 70 Gavin Moodie

These concerns were expressed by administrators2 and academics3 alike about

the Commonwealth Government's "New Accountabilism" (Nilsson) of the
1970s. Thus, Ritchie gave examples of three types of Government controls of
education. These are: controls brought about by action in other areas of
government which impinge on education (TEAS, labour and industry tribunals);
controls brought about by community disenchantment and peripheral to the
core of institutional autonomy (study leave, student fees); and controls brought
about by community disenchantment which strike at the core of institutional
autonomy.
As an example of the third type of "government interference" Ritchie quoted
term of reference number 2 of a public enquiry into tertiary education funding
by the Parliamentary Accounts Committee —
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

To enquire into the operations of the Tertiary Education Commission and its
associated Councils with particular reference to:...
(c) the procedures adopted by the Commission and the Councils to evaluate or
have evaluated tertiary education institutions, their courses and the
product of tertiary education.
Ritchie observed:
This term of reference is a very wide ranging one entering areas of control which
have never been imposed before, viz. control on the product of tertiary education
and the evaluation of courses. The term of reference permits an enquiry into
efficiency in the broadest sense and this notion in academic institutions is one
which is almost impossible to define. As a result, the enquiry has the most open
terms of reference in terms of adding controls to the basic functions of the
institutions themselves. It is this last set of controls which postsecondary
education must be most wary of.4
Nevertheless, Governments have increasingly sought to regulate the
efficiency of tertiary educational institutions. They have further sought to
improve institutions' effectiveness in contributing to economic goals. The
Commonwealth Government made this clear in its guidelines to the Common-
wealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) for the 1985-87 triennium.
The Government asked CTEC to report further on "... ways of progressively
improving the overall output of higher education institutions in terms of skills
related to employment opportunities ...", and the guidelines state that"... an
important role of tertiary education — especially higher education — is to
stimulate and facilitate economic development, technological innovation and
industry restructuring, not merely to respond to these developments."5
This responsibility, expressed by Habermas6 as the responsibility to produce
and transmit technically exploitable knowledge is, of course, not a recent
Government requirement. In establishing the Committee of Inquiry into
Education and Training (the Williams Committee) in 1976, the previous
Government stated that a comprehensive review was required in part for the
familiar efficiency reasons — to reduce inefficiency and "unnecessary
duplication", and to clarify the roles of the three sectors of tertiary education.
The review was also required to improve the "linkages between education and
employment" and the capacity of the education system to serve the labour
market.7
 Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action 71

The speech of the then Prime Minister also suggested socio-economic and
political roles for tertiary education. Mr Fraser noted "the growing interest in
concepts such as open education, recurrent education and retraining, in the needs
of special groups, and in the role of educational qualifications in credentialling or
selecting people for jobs." (emphasis added). The Williams Committee was
therefore asked to consider and advise, amongst other things, on "the
accessibility of provision including re-entry and transf erability and the problems
of special groups (for example the handicapped, ethnic groups, Aboriginals and
women). . ." The Committee was instructed "to have regard to the Govern-
ment's objectives including widening educational opportunity, expanding
educational and occupational choice, developing quality and excellence in
education and "encouraging community participation in education and training matters".8
(emphasis added)
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

Social Responsibility
The requirement to serve the non-educational goals of redressing social and
political inequalities is neither novel, nor it appears, offensive to tertiary
educational institutions. Few educationalists objected to the terms of the
Williams inquiry, and its report was widely though perhaps unfairly regarded as
"ineffectual, moderate, benign"9 More recently, ANU, Griffith University and
the South Australia College of Advanced Education volunteered to participate
with a number of major Australian companies in the Government's Pilot
Affirmative Action Program. The Government's affirmative action policy,
which covers staffing as well as student matters, has explicit social and political
goals.
Social engineering policies such as the policy on affirmative action are an
attempt to change the impact of tertiary educational institutions in the non-
educational areas of employment and expenditure. In 1983 colleges and
universities (for which statistics are readily available) spent $M 1,500 employing
over 55,000 people and teaching about 250,000 students. The expenditure
patterns of these institutions affect local and regional businesses10, their
employment practices affect industrial relations. Decisions on the areas of
research, library collections and the curriculum, while taken primarily on
educational grounds, also affect cultural values and the dissemination of
knowledge within society.

Administrative values
The extra-educational impacts of tertiary educational institutions are
currently guided in administrative areas by technical considerations such as
competence, efficiency and effectiveness (which in themselves have tacit value
assumptions) but also by qualitative judgments. For example, a Buildings
Manager may decide "to give young people a go" in hiring semi-skilled ground
staff, or a Faculty Secretary may decide to favour people undertaking tertiary
study in hiring clerical staff, notwithstanding that the tertiary study is
irrelevant to the job being filled. These and similarly qualitative judgments are
made daily by middle and senior level tertiary educational administrators, on
the best social policy grounds.
 72 Gavin Moodie

This point was made by Wilenski about the Australian Government public
service:
The need for administrators to exercise value judgments is integral to our system
of government, and the conflict between the different legitimating principles is
irreconcilable. We need to develop a coherent theory to accommodate this reality.
. . . the first step is to acknowledge and have administrators acknowledge their
power and the fact that exercise of that power requires choices to be made on the
basis of personal values each and every working day. We cannot continue to
debate whether it is legitimate or not for the administrator's personal values to
intrude into his or her decisions; the fact is that they do, and as our system of
government operates, they must. Once that is accepted we can move on to the far
more important question which current public service ideology evades or ignores:
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

what are the legitimate values in different circumstances and how are specific
value choices to be justified. As a first step we might well require administrators to
be far more explicit about their value premises and the implications of their
decisions... for their public acceptance the true nature of the role of value-choices
in public administration needs to be recognised and subject to public scrutiny and
debate."

The report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Admin-

istration (Coombs report) observed further:
The most fundamental criticism deriving from these value considerations is that
the administration is, consciously or unconsciously, the instrument of dominant
social groups and the values which they espouse .. .12
Characteristically, the social policy values guiding administrative decisions
are developed informally and privately by the persons responsible for the
decisions. The novelty of the social engineering approach is that the social
values are considered formally, stated publicly, and become a corporate
responsibility.

Academic values
The application of social engineering policies to academic areas is sometimes
considered tangential if not contradictory to a pure "academic merit" model of
academic decision-making. On this vfew, academic decisions can and should be
determined by a "disinterested pursuit of truth".13 Compromise of the "pure"
academic values of tertiary educational institutions prejudices their roles and
missions.
This view draws attention to the very real dangers of a reductionist
interpretation of academic activities. If academic activities are guided by implicit
non-academic values, what is the difference between teaching and indoctrin-
ation, between research and sorcery? Alternatively, isn't the acknowledgement
that non-academic values are inherent in academic activities simply relativism
and extreme subjectivity in disguise?
The alternative view is that there can never be, strictly speaking, a pure
educational matter determined and executed solely on criteria of academic
merit. Social scientists make several different compromises in choosing their
 Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action 73

research topics, methodologies and publishing practices. We know from reading

scientists'accounts of their research that the natural sciences are affected by all
sorts of factors besides and sometimes contradictory to the disinterested
pursuit of truth and that the actual implementation of the "pure" academic
criterion of extending or transforming a field of study is influenced by the
academic community's understanding of broader social values, as well as the
forces within research institutions which are not strictly academic.14.
Habermas explains that:
. . . technical progress . . . owes its appearance of being an independent, self-
regulating process only to the way in which social interests operate in it — namely
through continuity with unreflected, unplanned, passively adaptive natural
history . . . this model presupposes a continuum of rationality in the treatment of
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

technical and practical problems which cannot in fact exist.

Today, research processes are coupled with technical conversion and economic
exploitation, and production and administration in the industrial system of labour
generate feedback for science. The application of science in technology and the
feedback of technical progress to research have become the substance of the world
of work.15
The doctrine of disinterested pursuit of truth was orthodox by the end of the
nineteenth century, but it is not clear that it was well founded even then. For as
Cardinal Newman wrote in the preface to his work establishing the principles
of the modern university, a university may be "steadied" by the spiritual
influence of the Church and directed to social goals without thereby being
compromised:
The view taken of a university in these discourses is the following: that it is a place
of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is, on the one hand,
intellectual, not moral; and on the other, that it is the diffusion and extension of
knowledge rather than the advancement. ..
Such is a university in its essence, and independently of its relation to the Church.
But, practically speaking, it cannot fulfil its object duty, such as I have described it,
without the Church's assistance; or, to use a theological term, the Church is
necessary for its integrity. Not that its main characters are changed by this
incorporation: it still has the office of intellectual education; but the Church
steadies it in the performance of that office.
. . . When the Church founds a university, she is not cherishing talent, genius, or
knowledge, for their own sake, but for the sake of her children, with a view to
their spiritual welfare and their religious influence and usefulness, with the object
of training them to fill their respective posts in life better, and of making them
more intelligent, capable, active members of society.16
One thus returns to the first difficulty: if academic activities are guided by
implicit non-academic values, what is the difference between teaching and
indoctrination, between research and sorcery? One suggestion, derived from
the work of the Frankfurt School, is that the academic activities of research and
teaching are protected from degenerating into sorcery and indoctrination by
adopting a "socially critical approach".17 That is, scholars and teachers cannot
avoid bias, but they should at least examine the political context within which
 74 Gavin Moodie

they are practising, and state explicitly their position within the value system
they have identified. This self-examination and self-revelation will alert the
student and the teacher to the bias inherent in their practices, and invites them
to adopt a critical approach to their practice. It is this self-critical approach which
protects student and teacher against indoctrination.

Social Action
In the first section of this paper it was noted that public accountability for
fiscal efficiency and economic effectiveness are apparently unproblematical for
tertiary educational institutions. It was also noted that tertiary educational
institutions have always, at least in recent history, been accountable to external
institutions on criteria external to academic merit. However, more recent
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

Government social engineering policies such as the affirmative action policy

have raised difficulties for tertiary educational institutions.
In the second section it was noted that the doctrine of "disinterested pursuit
of truth" is no longer valid for the academic enterprises of teaching and
research, if indeed it was ever valid. The claims of tertiary educational
administrations — the internal "civil service" — to be value free, impartial and
disinterested were seen to be variously incorrect and unfounded. Character-
istically, the social policy values guiding administrative decisions are developed
informally and privately by the persons responsible for the decisions. I argued
that adopting a "socially critical approach" protected academic activities from
charges of bias and manipulation. The novelty of this approach is that the social
values are considered formally, stated publicly, and become a corporate
responsibility.
The questions arise, does the public responsibility of tertiary educational
institutions extend to identifying and acting in areas of social need before the
prompting of "interventionist governments? On what grounds do they decide
whether to act on a particular issue, whether it is self-initiated or proposed by
an external body? I expect all tertiary educational administrators would endorse
emphatically their responsibility to anticipate and, as best they can, satisfy the
community's educational needs. But what justifies institutions'intervention in
other areas of social need, and does this mean that they have a responsibility to
act in all areas of social need?
To test how far the social responsibilities of tertiary educational institutions
may extend it is useful to consider three contemporary issues upon which
institutions may be invited to act: Aboriginal control of programmes for
Aborigines, averting nuclear war and links with South Africa.

Aboriginal control of programmes for Aborigines

Aboriginal education has been regarded as a "special issue" for tertiary
educational institutions since 1980. In Volume 1 of its report for the 1982-84
trien'nium, CTEC argued that "special programs of support, both educational
and financial, are required to increase Aboriginal participation in tertiary
education"18. The Commission adopted what was no doubt the prevailing
orthodoxy within the Commonwealth Government at the time that special
 Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action 75

programmes should be determined for Aborigines by the European style

administration established for their benefit:
Financial support for Aboriginal students is the responsibility of the Common-
wealth Department of Education. Some support has been provided for special
courses for Aboriginal students, by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal
Affairs ... The Commission believes that the authorities which are charged with
special responsibilities for Aboriginal affairs should determine and fund those
special programs which they consider are required for Aboriginal people.19
The Commission's commitment to Aboriginal education was elaborated in its
report for the 1985-87 triennium:
. . . we propose that a major effort be made in the 1985-87 triennium to increase
Aboriginal participation in higher education courses, especially in teacher
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

education and in selected other professions such as medicine and law; we also
advocate an expansion of special measures to improve Aboriginal success rates.20
Again, the special measures supported were at the initiative of European
institutions:
A number of higher education institutions have taken the initiative and responded
to the need to make special arrangements for Aboriginal students both in terms of
entry and support during courses. These responses include introduction of special
entry provisions, the establishment of special courses and the setting up of special
support services in the form of tutorial assistance, personal counselling, and
special recreation areas, generally provided as part of an enclave program.21
It is also clear that the special measures are introduced with a view to
integrating Aboriginal students into European institutions.
This integrationist or assimilationist policy for Aborigines was discarded by
the Labor Government in 1972, which replaced it with a policy of self-
determination. The policy of self-determination has four elements — the grant
of Aboriginal land rights, consultation with Aborigines, the introduction of
bilingual education, and the incorporation of Aboriginal communities. This
policy, renamed "self-management", was continued and largely implemented
by the Liberal/NCP Government. 22 The policy of self-determination therefore
remains the policy of the Commonwealth Government and has bipartisan
political support.
The National Aboriginal Education Advisory Committee (NAEC) gives some
guidance on Aboriginal views on Aboriginal education in its report Aborigines and
tertiary education (1984). Heading the list of recommendations is the following:
All educational institutions adopt as policy
• special entry requirements
• recognition that measures to assist Aborigines operating within their instit-
utions are part of their overall responsibility
• Aboriginal responsibility for the operation of special programs
• necessity to ensure Aboriginal input into the general operation of institutions,
especially through the employment of Aboriginal people and the appointment
of Aborigines to the governing bodies of institutions y
 76 Gavin Moodie

• the need to encourage faculties to improve their courses by incorporating units

and material reflecting Aboriginal learning and perspectives; in particular,
there needs to be inclusion of units and materials reflecting Aboriginal values
and needs which will prepare all teachers to teach Aboriginal children.
Of those recommendations, the first is probably being implemented by most
if not all tertiary educational institutions, and the second is supported by CTEC.
But I am not aware of anything more than sporadic or isolated instances of
relinquishing control of Aboriginal education to Aborigines. Nor has control of
the curriculum been relinquished to allow Aborigines to prepare all teachers to
teach Aboriginal children. Furthermore, the notion of a pan-Aboriginal
programme, a programme for general application for all Aborigines, is
unacceptable. This may be gathered from the inclusion of bilingual education in
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

the policy of self-determination, and would in any case follow from a

consideration of the different circumstances of Aborigines living in urban and
isolated communities, and the very diverse cultural perspectives of tradition-
oriented Aborigines.
In this sense, then, Aboriginal control of programmes for Aborigines is
controversial — can tertiary educational institutions allow Aborigines to select
students, to set the curriculum and to determine the assessment for programmes
for Aborigines? A lead in answering these questions may be taken from the
example of another special group, women, which has sought to devise and
control women's studies courses for women.
According to a survey conducted by the Australian Union of Students (AUS),
70 per cent of higher educational institutions offered one or more women's
studies related course in 1984. Of the students enrolled in women's studies
courses, 88 per cent were women. According to the survey "overwhelmingly,
those academics engaged in the field of women's studies are women".
The report argues:
While the results (of the survey) at first glance appear positive (in that) women's
courses are more widely available, the "poor cousine" status of women's studies
remains unchanged. The 100 or so pages which make up this directory of available
courses, pale into insignificance beside Melbourne University's Arts Faculty
Handbook of some 400 pages and Footscray Institute's 200 odd. It should be
remembered that these courses range from three fifteenths of a course to a
diploma course.23
The author of the report also notes:
It appears that assessment for women's studies courses has largely "fallen into
line" with "man-stream" subjects . . . (since) of seventy seven courses only one
offers non-traditional assessment, i.e. mode of work other than assignment.24
No doubt traditional ideas of academic standards confine curriculum
innovation, and staffing continues to be a major obstacle to achieving equality
of status within tertiary education. Nevertheless, the example of women's
studies shows that it is possible for a special group to devise and control
programmes for members of that group. Aboriginal education is an area of
manifest social need to which tertiary education can respond. Aboriginal
 Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action 77

control of programmes for Aborigines may yet be controversial, but the

women's studies example suggests that it should be considered seriously by
tertiary educational institutions.

Averting nuclear war

A second area of social need in which tertiary education may have a
responsibility to act is in averting nuclear war. This is proposed by the
Chancellor of La Trobe University, who argues that averting nuclear war,
reinstating the unemployed, and growing economically without retarding
developing countries are issues of crucial importance and of such urgency that
universities need to take deliberate steps now to contribute effectively to their
solution.25
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

Some suggestions for steps to avert nuclear war might be: the adoption of a
resolution supporting (multilateral) nuclear disarmament; the erection of signs
around our institutions proclaiming "This is a nuclear free campus"; the
introduction of courses in "Peace studies"; and the conduct of research into the
causes of war. These raise several contentious issues which may be exemplified
by considering whether to introduce a course in "Peace studies".
In considering whether to introduce a course in "Peace studies", or perhaps
more correctly, "Conflict management", tertiary educational institutions would
consider first whether there is a body of knowledge that may form the
substance of the course. Equally important will be whether there is a discipline
or an appropriate methodology for handling the subject matter. The institution
will consider whether the proposed course is at a level and in an area compatible
with its existing courses. The initiative for offering the course should come
from academic staff who develop the course from their academic interests and
scholarship. Student interest is important.
It may be that in considering whether to introduce such a course, tertiary
educational institutions observe the obligation of the scholarly community to
pursue important questions irrespective of political or economic pressures, the
teachers' role in fostering critical and enquiring attitudes in their students, and
institutions' responsibility to respond to community needs.
But educational institutions will not introduce a course in "Peace studies" to
promote peace, to influence public opinion or to counteract the propaganda of
the military-industrial complex. These latter considerations are worse than
irrelevant to educational decisions, they are directly contradictory to the
institution's central academic values. Likewise, in determining research pro-
grammes, scholarly attention is directed to problems that arise from the
literature and the broader community, not at predetermined social or political
goals which beg the very questions which are to be investigated.

Links with South Africa

My third issue to test how far the social responsibilities of tertiary
educational institutions may extend is the question of links with South Africa.
When I first wrote the outline for this paper in March 1985, the question of
 78 Gavin Moodie

links with South Africa, other than sporting links, was of marginal interest to
the popular press, and was rarely discussed on campus. When I came to
complete the paper in early August I found that my earlier outline had been
overtaken by significant changes. Now the matter was debated widely in the
community and reported prominently by the press. I also noted a report in The
Australian that the South Australian College of Advanced Education had
followed the example set by some North American tertiary educational
institutions in cutting links with financial institutions which operate in South
Africa. I hope to be excused if the following observations are similarly
overtaken by events.
Tertiary educational institutions are not an arm of Government, and
presumably will not, at least initially, be required by law to comply with the
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

Government's policy. Nevertheless, there are other reasons why tertiary

educational institutions should review their policies on links with South Africa.
The traditional statement of the role of universities is the creation,
preservation and transmission of knowledge. This orthodoxy requires at least
academic freedom for scholars to enquire into any area of knowledge, freedom
for students and teachers to pursue any subject of academic inquiry, freedom of
speech and association, and institutional autonomy to protect those freedoms.
Universities traditionally relate to an international community of scholars.
By and large, this has been restricted to a minority of South Africans. In future,
universities will want to exercise their freedoms to involve in teaching and
research South Africans who are currently excluded from racist institutions.
They will want to consider views which are banned, they will want to engage in
debate which is censored and they will want to preserve books which are
currently being burnt. By pursuing their traditional educational role, Australian
universities will establish links with non-racist South Africans.
Other Australian tertiary educational institutions will want to include non-
racist South Africans in their academic activities, notwithstanding that they do
not traditionally relate to the international community. All tertiary educational
institutions will be concerned that all their students, including any overseas
students, are selected on non-racist grounds. They will want teaching staff to
have access to sources of information and learning which are currently
prohibited. All educational institutions will feel a responsibility to correct
propaganda errors, to ensure that the wider community has access to ideas
suppressed by the racist regime, and to promote an informed and serious
understanding of problems in South Africa and the implications for Australia.
Accordingly, the educational responsibilities of tertiary educational instit-
utions will involve them in strengthening links with South Africans who do not
have academic freedoms within their own country, and discontinuing South
African links inconsistent with the academic values of freedom of enquiry and
preservation of knowledge. This may involve institutions' formal teaching and
research programmes, as well as their less formal but equally important role in
general community development. Within these parameters — on the under-
standing that links will be formed or broken on broad educational grounds —
 Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action 79

action by tertiary educational institutions on links with South Africa is not only
justified, but is required by their traditional role.

Discussion
The issues of Aboriginal control of programmes for Aborigines, averting
nuclear war, and links with South Africa have raised numerous questions
which cannot all be considered properly here. However, there are some
observations which may suggest useful limits to an apparently limitless area of
dispute.
For example, there must be limits to institutions' exercise of their social
responsibilities imposed by the requirement not to infringe the individual
freedoms of scholars, students and teachers. Other limits to institutions'
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

exercise of their social responsibilities could be described, such as requirements

to follow correct procedure, to employ valid methodologies, and to keep within
the law and generally accepted moral norms.
These limits to institutions' corporate social responsibilities are possibly
comprehensive enough to establish a framework within which institutions may
act. But they do not indicate the areas in which institutions should act. Nor do
they assist institutions in determining desirable action within permissible areas.
I suggest that guidance on the areas or scope of institutions' social
responsibilities may be obtained from the roles acknowledged by the institutions
and their supporting communities. That is why we have no difficulty in
acknowledging tertiary educational institutions' responsibilities to anticipate
and, as best they can, satisfy the community's educational needs. The
determination and satisfaction of tertiary educational needs is clearly within the
role acknowledged by the institutions, by the Government and by the broader
community. Furthermore, educational institutions clearly have a corporate
responsibility to defend individuals' academic freedom.
For other issues not so obviously and traditionally within acknowledged
roles, it is necessary to make judgements in each case. Tertiary educational
institutions generally have not had difficulty in accepting some social engin-
eering roles proposed by Governments, such as policies on improved access,
transition education and participation and equity. Difficulties arise when a role
is acknowledged by an institution or by Government, but not by the other.
Thus, institutions may resist Government pressure to adopt a role in foreign
affairs, or Governments may object to institutions proposing roles in defending
civil liberties or in military or economic matters.
Having determined that an area is relevant for institutional action, there is
the further question of what policy to adopt and what action to take. Thus,
there may be disagreement within institutions, and between institutions and
Governments, on the appropriate policy or action within well accepted
institutional roles. There may be a further difficulty with conflict between
personal and corporate views. This is a normal and accepted part of corporate
life.
For example, all of us would have some disagreement with a decision, practice
 80 Gavin Moodie

or policy of our professional association. We do not necessarily feel compromised

by our membership of an association solely because it has expressed a view
contrary to our own, though we may work within the association to change its
view. If an association does adopt a view which we find abhorrent or to which
we have a fundamental objection, we resign from the association, and seek to
change it from without. Similar though not identical considerations apply to
our membership of colleges and universities.

Conclusion
The general argument of this paper has been that institutions should take the
initiative, rather than have their social responsibilities thrust upon them. In
times of social change, it is not sufficient to argue that institutions' social action
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

should be within historically accepted bounds. On the other hand, not all areas
of social action demand an institutional commitment. It is necessary to consider
carefully what action is demanded of educational institutions, and what might
compromise their educational values.

Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Donald Denoon of ANU's History
Department, and of Associate Professor Stephen Kemmis, of Deakin
University's School of Education, with ideas in this paper. I am grateful to my
colleagues who in discussions contributed indirectly but importantly to the
formation of views expressed in the paper. Associate Professor Kemmis
assisted greatly with a critical reading of two early drafts, although I am aware
that the paper still falls far short of his standards.

Notes
1. Blainey, G. A Centenary History of The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, MUP, 1957, 118
2. Ritchie, J.B. "The effects of increasing Government influence", Journal of Tertiary Educational
Administration, 1.1, (October 1979), 34-39, 39.
3. Nilsson, N. "SF: or close encounters of the tertiary kind", Vestes, 22.1 (1979) 3-10, 10.
4. Ritchie, op. cit. 39 (supra note 2).
5. Ryan, S. Guidelines to CTEC for the 1985-87 triennium, 5 July, 1984 3, 21.
6. Habermas, J. Towards a rational society (trans J. J. Shapiro), London, Heinemann, 1980, 2.
7. Fraser, M. Statement to the House of Representatives. 9 September, 1976.
8. Anvvyl, J.E. "Editor's note on Williams Report symposium", Vestes, 22.2, (1979). 3-4.
9. Freeland, J. and Sharp R. "Education, the State and labour power", paper delivered to SAANZ
Conference, Canberra, July, 1979; quoted in Encel, S. "The social significance of the Williams
report", Vestes, 22.2, (1979), 14-17.
10. Bryant, R.J. "Funding the universities and the 1982-84 triennium — where did the money get
to?", Vestes, 27.2, (1984), 46-54, 46.
11. Wilenski, P. "Competing values in public administration", in Private values and public policy. The ethics
of decision making in government administration, (Banks R ed). Homebush West, NSW, Lancer Books,
1983, 27-28.
12. Coombs, H.C. Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. Canberra,
AGPS, 1976, 22.
 Social Change, Social Responsibility and Social Action 81

13. Chipman, L. "Federal guidelines and equal opportunity in higher education — implications for
the administration and governance of universities and colleges" in Sloper, D.W. (ed) Proceedings of
the Institute for Higher Education conference held at the University of New South Wales 20-22 June 1984, T h e
University of New England, 1985, 56.
14. Kemmis, S. (Convenor) Report, Research Policy Review Group, Deakin University mimeograph,
1984, 69.
15. Habermas, op. cit. {supra note 6) 64, 55.
16. Newman, (1858) Published in The idea of a university, New York, Image books, 1959.
17. Kemmis, S. "Educational reform and the teaching profession: making change", The Educational
Magazine, 42.1, (1985), 7.
18. CTEC, Report for 1982-84 triennium, vol 1, part 1. Canberra, AGPS, 1981, 198.
19. ibid.
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 19:21 19 September 2012

20. CTEC, Report for 1985-87 triennium, vol 1, part 1. Canberra, AGPS, 1984, 74.
21. ibid.,75.
22. Cole, K. Aborigines and mining on Groole Eylandt. A study in cross-cultural relationships, Bendigo: Keith
Cole Publications, 1981, 14.
23.AUS, Women's studies directory, Melbourne, AUS mimeograph, 1984, 4.
24. ibid.,6.
25. (a)McGarvie, R.E. "Observations on the Birmingham Commonwealth universities' congress:
three urgent problems", Vestes, 27.2 (1984) 44-45.
(b) McGarvie, R.E. "Universities and the avoidance of nuclear war", Peace studies, Melbourne,
(May 1985), 11-13.