This motion, to be discussed at the next SRC, requires a little explanation. This will centre firstly on the problem then on the ideas behind the motion and the compulsory aspect of it.

The Problem

A major objection to the present NZ educational outlook in general and university schema in particular is the idea that these institutions are somehow separate from the rest of society. In practice, this leads to a peculiar elitism, pretending that "intellectuals" (which the system is geared to producing) have no obligations to anything but academic integrity. We all know where that attitude in science got us — into the atom bomb era. While less dramatic in its consequences, and less observable, a similar attitude throughout academia has disturbing results. Critical energies that could be directed towards solving the multitude of problems in society become diverted towards esoteric and irrelevant research topics (of course, this is not universally true, but it is a predominant trend, and one which must be opposed.

Again, an isolationist stance by intellectuals, supposedly impartial, directly supports the status quo by refusing to exercise the criticism and suggestion that should be forthcoming from all members of society. The vast amounts that are poured into university are well worth it for the government and business interests — their higher functionaries are turned out with a minimum of disruption and fuss, and see no responsibility to the people they are to be bossing.

Lastly, the university's highly competitive nature and reluctance to accept social responsibility create a highly individualistic emphasis — an emphasis that can be seen in many critics of the system. The response of many is also individualistic — "dropping out" or similar actions. There is a lack of movement towards the social involvement and solidarity needed to fight the situation.

So much for the "successes" — how about the "failures"? The rejects of the system have, in most cases, learnt the vital things they have to learn: that there is someone else who knows more than they do, whose experience is more valid than theirs. In short, they become conditioned to accept the status quo also — witness the recent large working class opposition to the protests against injunctions. As John Hold argues (How Children Fail, The Underachieving School), the major function of schools, especially towards working class children, is to destroy their faith in their own creativity and to condition them to accept their "failure". There is also an emphasis on individuality here — surveys taken in the States during the Depression showed that many of the unemployed (mostly from the working class) saw their lack of work not as a failure of the system, but as their own failure to get a good education in the twenties; an individual rather than a collective response. The propaganda of the conservative parties — from Muldoon's "fair deal for the honest bloke" to Nixon's "black capitalism", continually stresses that the way to success is through the established paths, hiding the obvious fact that in an exploitive arrangement there must be a large number of exploited for every one of the exploiters, that is "successes".

What can be done to remedy this situation? What measures can be taken to ensure that rampant individualism is severely limited in its potential for causing social pollution of all sorts? The present parties in Parliament do little — National pretends there is no problem, while Labour hopes to persuade everyone by papering over the cracks that everything is beautiful. Insofar as this is merely an extension of the "someone knows better than you what you want" philosophy outlined above, it is doomed to make no real reforms and in its ultimate (represented by Sweden) create massive social alienation. There is a real need for an education that will stress the power of the people, that will accept everyone's experiences as valid, not create extremely dubious distinctions in favour of "intellectuals".

It is futile to expect that these reforms can be fully implemented under capitalism but it is equally wrong to argue that absolutely nothing can be done. In creating links between people divided by our society — employers and workers, Pakehas and Polynesians, male and female, the nature and causes of division and exploitation can be studied and solutions (and there is no one 'correct' solution) attempted. As there is no one solution, there is no one method of raising consciousness. One method I would suggest is contained in the motion.

The idea

What would a year's furlough from academic study (assuming that is what students actually do) achieve? Firstly, it would mean that students would have to find something to do. While most students do come from wealthy or middle class backgrounds, there are few whose parents could afford to have them living at home without earning for a year. Consequently most would probably get jobs of one sort or another. But prescribing too clearly what should or should not be done is to establish another set of page 5 approved experiences to replace the old ones. Assuming that a job is being sought, it is unlikely (given the fact that the person is only going to have it for a year) to be an enormously exciting one. Some may argue that in fact students get a good idea what the working environment is like by working during the holidays. There are two replies to this, the idea is to gain an appreciation of what the situation really is, and a year is a completely different time scale for this to occur in. Beyond the effects on the people concerned, there are also many salutary effects expected in the educational system.

Clearly, if the students have a greater knowledge and appreciation of workers conditions it is more difficult to persuade them that the workers' experience is completely invalid. Also, there will have to be a restructuring of the secondary school. They will have to accept the fact that there is no natural progression from school to university. They will also have to accept that a person can be judged on criteria other than an artificial three hours exam after weeks of unusual stress. Incidentally, the University Grants Committee recognises in its report this year that some change in this way is necessary at the moment, with a declining proportion of seventh formers going directly to university, but this suggestion is more wide-ranging than theirs. I am not for one moment suggesting that this will stamp out elitist or class-based attitudes — these go far deeper than the education system — but it is a step along the way.

The necessity for compulsion

Most societies decide that education is a "good thing" for their children. While one can argue that the identification of education with schooling is narrow and restrictive, there can surely be little doubt as to the benefits of education. After all, in its widest (and most accurate) sense, education consists of learning from experience, practical and theoretical. As has been pointed out above, the schooling system in New Zealand at the moment is heavily biased toward the intellectual and academic (a bias which is compulsory for students to accept if they wish to "succeed"). Introducing some sort of, albeit minor, rectification to this imbalance between intellectual and manual labour must also, unfortunately, be compulsory. The inculcation of pro-intellectual schema in this society is such that any alternative proposal is liable to have a long road in front of it. Examples are easy to find — so many senior school pupils tell a teacher that they don't intend going to university, and get the reply that they are wasting their talents. No question of what they wanted to do, no possibility of alternatives being acceptable — if you don't go to university you're wasting your talents. Hopefully, by injecting a years break to the scheme, alternatives may be raised for most students, and some criticism of taught values and ideas can take place. Despite its professed belief in the rights of the individual, our society steps in in many places to protect individuals from themselves. Safety belts in cars, or regulations against hard drugs are two examples — given the benefits envisaged from this scheme, there is no real ground for opposing its compulsory nature.

Conclusion

There may be some comment that this plan foists a scheme on people in the name of ending the forcing of schemes on people. This is a misreading of the situation — society necessarily "foists" things upon its members — one can only attempt to ensure that the measures (and implicitly the society) are as open ended and non-exploitive as possible. By requiring a break in the headlong rush to get a degree for our "best" (however defined) students, we can only increase the amount of criticism of the established goals, and the sympathy for other members of society, their problems and experiences. Insofar as many of those taking part in the scheme will in future be required to manage what they themselves have come through, one can hope that the management will be somewhat more humane, and more importantly that the inherent contradictions in social wealth privately owned will become more obvious. I think this proposal, if implemented, will be one small step toward a better society.

—Anthony Ward