On June 8 an international symposium took place in the Pieterskerk, titled ‘Whose university is it?'

Universities used to be national, municipal, or church-bound institutions. Ties between Government and institutions, however, are loosening all the time. The only remaining firm bond is the financial one, the Government providing the major part of financing for universities.

This symposium looked back and forward into interaction between University and Society on the one hand and between Government and University on the other. Comparisons were drawn between Dutch universities and those abroad. Particular interest was cast on the future development of the universities as state or private institutions in the Netherlands: Whose university is it?

On this fascinating day famous international speakers discussed these issues. During the interval, the University provided a generous free lunch, whilst showing the Canadian film ‘Whose university is it?'

Scope

The story goes that once the siege of Leiden had ended, Prince William of Orange offered the town of Leiden a gift: the choice between either a decrease in taxation, or obtaining a University…

Universities used to be governed by national and municipal bodies or by the Catholic or Reformed churches. Nowadays, universities are no longer ruled by the Minister, the Mayor or the Church, so whose University is it anyway? Are we aware of who is accountable for our University, who cares for it?

‘He who pays, decides' so it is said. Most Universities worldwide still receive the major part of their funding from the national Government and therefore it can make demands on quality and accountability. But to what extent are universities responsible for these themselves? Do they, for example, have the right to pre-select their students? The Government requires universities to operate at a comparative level nationally on the one hand, and yet expects them to profile themselves and be competitive on the other. How far should governmental influence stretch?

Higher education has been subjected to large budgetary cuts during the past decades, while at the same time the number of students has increased drastically, resulting in continuous financial struggles for our universities. Since no solution is expected from the Government, should students therefore pay higher education fees as they do in the United States? Alternatively, should universities be privatised and be allowed to implement marketing mechanisms? Should universities look beyond their own national borders and compete for increasing numbers of foreign students?

Education and scientific research are closely linked in Dutch universities. In other European countries this link between education and research is not as tight, since much research is done in non-university institutions. Nonetheless, academic education will always have to be associated with learning in a research environment. A number of universities have joined ranks to form the League of European Research Universities, initiated by Leiden, Louvain, Oxford and Cambridge. What does this orientation towards research mean to the university as such, as well as to those faculties that have less of a tradition in scientific research and are more engaged in formal education?

Once, universities were ivory towers, but from the democratising movement onwards they have been positioned in the middle of society. Are universities, however, the common ground for independent and new social developments? Does society represent the research laboratory for universities? Some universities themselves explicitly encourage entrepreneurialism and surround themselves with business parks; is the development of knowledge nowadays primarily to serve economic prosperity purposes or are well-being and culture not at least as important? What does the future have in store for academic freedom and social cohesion?

To discuss these and other questions, Leiden University has organised a one-day symposium during the week when its 430th anniversary will be celebrated: what developments in the near and more distant future do we anticipate in the university set-up?

Whose University Is It? (the title was taken from a piece of graffiti at Trent University) is a new addition to the growing pantheon of documentary films that politicize as well as inform. The film successfully splices interviews, video from protests, university meetings and provincial debates to show the shift in university governance from a democratic, inclusive policy to a more dictatorial model that is little concerned with the people the universities are supposed to serve.

The movie shines a light on the activities of the provincial government with regards to education, and specifically how it is using funds to coerce universities to be more dependent on private corporate sponsorship.

Needing cash, Trent University applied to the province's Superbuild fund, money set aside by the Tories specifically to get universities to apply for corporate donations. Along with this conditional offer of money was a message from a provincial representative that Trent would be made an example of if it weren't "accountable to its consumers/taxpayers." The government requested the university sell off its downtown campus in the heart of Peterborough.

In the film the present head of the university, Bonnie Patterson, appears pleased with these developments. She likens the students who would be concentrated on a single isolated campus to a "guaranteed consumer base" for the various corporations that will move into the college setting, once they have secured the right to do so by donating to the university.

When the university's Senate (a coalition of professors and students) votes against the Superbuild proposal, the Board of Governors, led by Patterson, rejects the Senate recommendations in an unprecedented move. A former president of the university makes it clear this is not a choice everybody in Patterson's position would make.

The film ends with a dramatic confrontation between police and students, who are forcibly dragged away during a protest. The final frame quotes economist John Kenneth Galbraith asserting that the health of a society can be measured by its willingness to publicly support schooling; a sobering indication of the health of our society today.

Arthur interviews two Trent alumni and independent filmmakers about the project that got them banned from filming on campus.

Arthur - When did you start working on your film about Trent?

James - Two years ago I read in the Toronto Star about Senate being overturned by the Board of Governors. I pitched the story to CBC radio, who I did documentaries with. CBC turned it down. They came back to me and said how would you like to do this story on Don Cherry. Completely unrelated. And then it seemed like the issue had gone away. They got turned down in the first phase [of SuperBuild Funding]. And then I was at the Hot Docs festival.

Mark - A documentary film festival, and we hadn't seen each other in a few years. And you're always walking around these cocktail parties looking for a non-business person, somebody who's kind of interesting.

James - There's about four people at the party with any kind of power and there's two hundred people who are trying to talk to them.

Mark - And we bumped into each other and just started talking.

James - It was just after they got awarded the [SuperBuild] money for the second time.

Mark - So James said to me "So, what do you think about what is happening at Trent?" and I said "What?" He said "Well, that the Senate was overturned by the Board of Governors. That PR was being closed." I didn't think it was anything serious. These threats came up when we were here, and ten years later. Harry kitchen had this idea a long time ago. James said "Now it's serious. Senate voted against it and the Board of Governors is going to do it anyway."

The thing is, this cuts to the root of the whole thing. It's that universities have a bicameral system, where the senate and the Board of governors have to work together to govern a university. This is a big deal.

James- We got really charged up about it

Mark - We took it to a CBC broadcaster that we knew, and they said "It's too small, it's too far away, it's too boring, people won't understand it." But we didn't give up then, we kept pitching it. We realized that no broadcaster was going to be interested in it. So then you have two choices. One is that you usually don't make the film. The other is that you do it anyway. Its been a hard and complicated process.

James - So then I got in touch with George Nader, and he sent me information. And we started working out how would we do it. We figured we'd have to get Bonnie Patterson, she'd have to be our first interview cause once everyone knew what we were trying to do they would shut it down. As luck would have it, that summer there was an alumni event happening at a Toronto pub, and Bonnie was going to be there. I thought: I'll go to this thing and tell her we're doing a documentary. And I was trying to think of an angle. So I told her I was doing this project on the double cohort, the baby boom echo, and how the universities were dealing with it. She was so nice, she actually gave me a hug and she said "That sounds great, to get Trent out there. And I'm glad the alumni are taking interest in the university." So she said she would give us an interview.

Mark - We didn't know what the film was about at this point

James - Yeah, we were just fishing.

Mark - To be honest, I thought there's got to be a lot more to it. Why would the BoG go against the Senate? What's changed in terms of the history of the university? This is a very big deal. The issue comes up about PR, but this is bigger, this is much much bigger.

When we were here the president was a guy name Donald Theall who believes that Trent should be a private university. Go talk to him; he lives on the hill, he'll tell you. You don't get much more conservative. He was the cause of a lot of protest, a lot of grief and anguish the way Bonnie is. But Donald told us in no uncertain terms, "I believe in the idea of the university, I would never have quashed the bicameral system." He said "That's a line I'd never cross."

James - So we did this interview and Patterson was very friendly. And then when she realized what we were going to talk about, she didn't want to talk about it.

Mark - She tried to storm off. At that point we realized that this is serious. I'd expected it to be a congenial interview in some ways. And I was really shocked. and I've been continually shocked at the Trent administration's approach to try to shut this down. Rather than saying "Okay let's debate it, lets talk about it," it's been like "No, we made up our minds and we don't want anybody to talk about it anymore, we don't want any dissent."

All this led us to think that this is a very important thing that is happening and it goes well beyond the confines of Trent university. It goes to Oxford, it goes to Bologna, it goes to Harvard. Universities exist in society for a purpose, for a reason in society.

Arthur - So at that point you started talking to faculty?

James - We talked to George Nader. I wanted to interview him and someone from the court case. It seemed like the court case was the pivotal issue. But now it doesn't seem that important. I mean it's important to the issue, but not in terms of the story. So we talked to Ian and Peter Kulchysky cause also there's the First People's House of Learning. A lot of the time we would interview people and we would find out about things. We tried to interview Board members. In some cases Board members were told not to talk to us.

Arthur - So are you looking at how these same things are happening at other universities?

Mark - Not specifically, but the idea is that were trying to tell the Trent story so that it becomes universal. We want to bring out what's happening here and how that is common to universities and other public institutions: hospitals, public schools, municipalities. I think the whole idea of moving ahead and dramatically altering the character of an institution without including the people of that institution in the decision-making process is something that is happening in all different areas.

Arthur - What do you hope to achieve by making this film?

James - That's a good question.

Mark - Well I think the big thing for me is showing how momentous this decision is, how it fits in with so many other things that are happening and how this is the end of one of the last real universities in Canada. I mean U of T isn't a university anymore, it's a giant community college. It doesn't do what universities were structured to do, what they were created for. It serves another function, another purpose in society.

Arthur - So when you were at Trent, colleges had more power, more autonomy?

James - Yes, they did.

Mark - Well certainly senate had a lot of power. That's one of the things that I don't understand in this whole issue is how Senate let the power go so easily.

Arthur - Maybe part of the problem is that everyone thinks that they have to remain polite.

James - I think that is what happening with the senate. I think the idea of civility is confused with being subservient.

Mark - And that I don't understand. They had their power taken away from them and went along with it quite easily. Like lambs to the slaughter. Does the Senate not understand that the entire power structure of the university has been changed?

Arthur - Were you concerned when you heard the Board of Governors was going to go into a debt situation, take out a loan for the new college?

James - Well now it's become a political issue, they have to do it. I think in some ways this is Bonnie's tragic flaw: she has to win. I mean she's already decided that PRC has got to go; even if it doesn't make sense now, it's got to go.