
Universities are in turbulent times
Life is turbulent for universities worldwide. If it is not the doctrinaire antipathy towards universities shown by the United States government, it is lack of funding from governments in many other countries.
The outright hostility between government and universities in the US is not commonplace in most other countries, and yet there are subtle forces at play that are creating ongoing concerns.
It is increasingly common to encounter criticism of issues being researched, especially in the humanities, and the "woke" character of academic life and interests. No matter how vague this criticism may be, it is sufficient to justify governments downplaying the stature of universities and their role in society.
Consider the experience of a very high-profile researcher and administrator in the United States. Francis Collins initially came to prominence for identifying the genetic cause of cystic fibrosis. He then led the Human Genome Project and served as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 2009-21.
He was closely associated with the research to find a vaccine against Covid-19 and advocated very strongly for use of vaccines once available.
On his retirement from the NIH he returned as a researcher to the Genome Research Institute.
However, in 2025 he resigned in despair at the wholesale withdrawal of research funds. Since then, Collins has spoken out eloquently against what appears to be a concerted effort to denigrate evidence-based science and its importance in providing a foundation for ongoing medical research.
Although Collins' recent experiences lie largely in research institutes, they exemplify crucial issues for universities — largely in the US, but to a lesser degree in many other countries.
Some people have a low view of research and scholarship, regarding them as a waste of time and money.
They think academics are too liberal, not in touch with ordinary people and need the government to show them what research the country needs.
Such was the rationale last year for shifting the focus of the Marsden Fund away from the humanities and social sciences towards STEM subjects (physics, chemistry, maths, engineering and biomedical sciences).
Whatever the justification for decisions like this, universities need to be aware of society's expectations. Very simply, universities are dependent upon governments for much of their funding, and while they regard themselves as autonomous, this is a circumscribed autonomy.
There has to be respect on both sides, and trust has to be won. Governments and universities cannot exist without each other, no matter how much each may think otherwise.
Universities do not have a right to exist, in much the same way that anatomy schools, that have been central to my academic life, do not have a right to dissect human bodies. They do so only with social licence that has been established over many years with strict ethical guidelines.
Academic freedom is a much-debated aspect of university functioning that can be threatened and abused in many ways. It only exists within an environment that encourages creativity, innovative ideas and criticism of the status quo. It is the freedom to research interesting and on occasion contentious topics that sometimes tread on the toes of politicians, policy makers and even university authorities. It does not sit easily alongside managerialism and conformity. Its protection requires vigilance and acknowledgement that this freedom is to be earned and defended if it is to be retained.
Consider the extreme example of Harvard University, which is being threatened in unimaginable ways by the Trump administration. In refusing to be cowed, its president expressed what universities aspire to be. "Seeking truth ... requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to ... acknowledge our flaws."
Universities must be prepared to defend themselves and their contributions to society, to highlight the benefits of universities but also acknowledge their weaknesses. Their ability to adapt is crucial, which is why they have survived for many hundreds of years. This is only possible as they open themselves to the scrutiny of others and reform themselves.
Academic staff are crucial in leading change and advocating for new perspectives. In my own disciplinary area, until the mid-20th century anatomists dissected unclaimed bodies of the dead in the absence of informed consent by relatives.
It was anatomists themselves who led the way in overturning this practice by insisting that only donated bodies be used.
Universities must never forget that their core business is research and educating domestic students. Unfortunately, lack of adequate funding drives dependence upon the income brought in by international students. Their presence brings in welcome cultural diversity as long as they are seen as more than income generators.
Turbulent times can be productive if faced head on. But universities must continually re-invent themselves and strive to contribute to and enhance their communities.
— Gareth Jones is an emeritus professor, anatomy department, University of Otago.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Previous govt spent too much during Covid: Treasury
By Giles Dexter of RNZ The previous government spent too much during the Covid-19 pandemic, despite warnings from officials, according to a briefing released by the Treasury. The Treasury's 2025 Long Term Insights Briefing said debt had risen in recent decades, partly because responses to adverse shocks were not met by savings between those shocks. The higher debt meant less capacity to respond to future shocks, like natural hazards, weather-related risks and biosecurity risks. Treasury estimated the total cost of the pandemic was $66 billion over the 2020-26 financial years and about 20.4% of GDP. The IMF and OECD estimated it was among the largest Covid-19 responses globally. The agency releases a briefing every three years, with this one looking at the role of fiscal policy through shocks and business cycles. The briefing said the Covid-19 response showed the challenges of using fiscal policy to respond to shocks and cycles. Initially, Treasury recommended "strong fiscal stimulus" at the start of the pandemic, which was cited as "perhaps" causing the economy to be much stronger than expected by the end of 2020. The wage-subsidy scheme in particular was seen as making an important contribution to the strong initial recovery, limiting the increase in the unemployment rate and enabling economic activity to resume when restrictions relaxed. Treasury then moved away from recommending broad-based stimulus, preferring more targeted and moderate support. Its post-election advice to the then-Finance Minister in late 2020 highlighted "the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge." By August 2021, with the Delta lockdowns coming in, Treasury recommended any decisions to provide support to businesses "should take account of macroeconomic trade-offs". It recommended against any further stimulus from Budget 2022 onwards. Wage subsidies and similar schemes during lockdowns made up about 35% of the costs of the response. A further 18% came from health-system costs, like vaccination, contact tracing, and managed isolation and quarantine. The remaining "nearly half" was made up of a wide range of initiatives that Treasury said had "varied objectives". Some were aimed at directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19, others were aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or "achieving social or environmental objectives". They included "tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches". Programmes within the fiscal response that were not tied to the shock were seen as having "a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind in later years". The report suggested cyclical management was best left to monetary policy, run by an independent central bank. It also suggested governments set out clearly when fiscal policy will be used ahead of time, including pre-defining responses. Ideally, this would have cross-party agreement. An independent fiscal institution, which could scrutinise and report on the sustainability of fiscal policy, was also suggested. The previous government had considered setting up a watchdog to cost election policies, but it could not get cross-party support. National then changed its tune, with current Finance Minister Nicola Willis supporting such a measure, but New Zealand First and ACT were opposed to the idea. 'Dangers of excessive spending' - Willis Willis jumped on the report's release, saying Treasury's language was "spare and polite", but its conclusions were "damning". She said the briefing showed the challenges of using "big spending measures" to respond to one-off shocks. Willis singled out the briefing's focus on the money spent on initiatives not directly tied to the Covid-19 response. "That is a very diplomatic way of saying New Zealanders are still paying the price of the previous government extending a big-spending approach, initially intended for a pandemic response," she said. Labour has been approached for comment.


Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Dangers Of Excessive Spending Highlighted
Minister of Finance Treasury's latest report highlights the dangers of excessive government spending, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The Treasury's Long-term Insights Briefing released today explores the role of fiscal policy in economic shocks and crises including the way government finances were used during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. It says the response, which wound up costing $66 billion, about twice the cost of the Canterbury earthquakes (as a proportion of GDP) also shows the challenges of using big spending measures to respond to one-off shocks. 'Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,' Nicola Willis says. 'The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid. Treasury is urging policy makers not to repeat those mistakes. Our Government will not. 'The briefing notes that the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund was established in May 2020 to 'support a timely economic response and public confidence' but as the economy recovered, the then-government was advised against further stimulating in favour of more targeted support. 'Unfortunately, the Labour government ignored that advice. The consequence was undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand's previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis. 'The briefing makes particular mention of programmes 'not tied to the shock (that) had a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind in later years'. 'That is a very diplomatic way of saying New Zealanders are still paying the price of the previous government extending a big-spending approach initially intended for a pandemic response. 'The lesson from Labour's mishandling of the Covid response is that while there are times when governments have to increase spending in response to major events the fiscal guardrails should be restored as soon as possible. 'Kiwis can take confidence from the current Government's commitment to strong and responsible fiscal and economic management.'


NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government overcooked spending during pandemic, against official advice, harming economy
This year's is on how fiscal policy – taxing and spending – should be used to respond to economic shocks. Treasury's calculation of the size of the Covid response. Graph / Treasury Its main finding, learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, was that fiscal policy should be used sparingly, with the Reserve Bank taking the lead on managing the economic cycle using its monetary policy tools like the Official Cash Rate. 'Polite, but its conclusions are damning' – Willis The report lands in the midst of a protracted economic downturn, with both the Government and the Opposition pointing the finger at each other over who is responsible. The Government blames Labour for excessive, inflationary and unsustainable spending that prompted the Reserve Bank to plunge the economy into recession with high interest rates. Labour blames the Government for cutting spending and axing infrastructure projects. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated the Government's concerns about Labour's spending. 'Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,' Willis said. 'The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated her concerns. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis pointed in particular to Treasury's criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme. The report said the fund was established in May 2020 to 'support a timely economic response and public confidence'. However, it added that 'as the economy recovered, the then Government was advised against further stimulating, in favour of more targeted support'. Willis said the Government 'ignored' that advice, favouring 'undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand's previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis that many families are still suffering from'. Labour has been approached for comment. Just ahead of Budget 2022, the then Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the Government struck the right 'balance'. 'There were and are no costless decisions. Doing less would have seen unemployment grow, or put people's health at risk,' Robertson said. Treasury told Govt to ease up on spending Treasury outlined a history of its advice during the pandemic. It said that initially, it had encouraged the Government to spend money to support the economy through things like the wage subsidy. However in late '2020 and into 2021 ... Treasury started to move away from recommending broad-based fiscal stimulus to support the economy towards more targeted and moderate fiscal support'. After the 2020 election, Treasury said it informed Robertson that there was 'adequate' fiscal space to support the economic recovery and space for 'further temporary support if the economic or public health situation deteriorated'. However, officials also 'highlighted the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge'. By August 2021, the beginning of Auckland's long lockdown, Treasury warned that any support to businesses should 'take account of macroeconomic trade-offs'. By Budget 2022, Treasury said it was recommending 'against any further stimulus'. The briefing noted that five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, spending is still close to its pandemic-era peak and has only been partly offset by higher revenue. Higher debt-servicing costs are weighing on the Government's balance sheet and lower GDP has 'contributed to the deficit both directly, by leading to a smaller tax base and lower revenue than anticipated, and indirectly, as spending plans were based on revenue expectations that did not eventuate'. The Covid fund was closed in 2022, ending that era of stimulus and Budget 2023 ended up being more stimulatory than planned thanks to the Auckland Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Unlikely comparison between Labour Govt and Ruth Richardson The briefing made an unlikely comparison between the Labour Government of Dame Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins and the fiscal policy of National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson. Treasury noted that fiscal policy can be counter-cyclical, which means it tries to counter and blunt the business cycle by, for example, spending money during a downturn to stimulate an economy, or saving during an upswing to cool an overheating one; or fiscal policy can be pro-cyclical – this means exacerbating a business cycle by spending money when an economy is hot or cutting back when an economy is shrinking. Treasury noted that the responses to the Asian Financial Crisis and the GFC had been accidentally counter-cyclical thanks to pre-promised tax cuts, however, fiscal policy was 'pro-cyclical in the early 1990s and during 2021-2023″. It said in the 1990s, 'pressures on fiscal sustainability motivated fiscal consolidation even as the economy was in recession'. In the case of the Covid response, the Government thought it was engaged in a counter-cyclical response to a 'severe economic downturn', however 'from late 2020, the economy turned out to be much stronger than expected (perhaps, in part, caused by the strength of fiscal stimulus itself)'. 'Combined with expenditure that was enduring rather than temporary, this resulted in large fiscal deficits while the economy was overheating.' The current Government is facing similar criticism for being pro-cyclical. Much like the Governments of the 1990s, it is trying to pull back spending to rebuild the balance sheet at a time of economic weakness. The Government was criticised for spending Covid money on school lunches. Photo / Liam Clayton How much was spent? Of the 20% of GDP spent on the pandemic, about half was spent on direct pandemic economic and health initiatives. Thirty-five per cent was spent on wage subsidies 'and similar schemes during lockdowns' and a further 18% 'arose from health-system costs such as vaccination and contact tracing, along with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) costs'. The parties that now form the Government broadly agreed with this spending at the time – National, at some points, called for spending on wage subsidies to be even greater. The remainder of the response was 'made up of a wide range of initiatives with varied objectives', Treasury said. Some initiatives were 'aimed at more directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19 and others aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or achieving social or environmental objectives'. These included tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches. The then Opposition disagreed with much of this spending. Lessons for next time In a foreword to the report, Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie noted that increased use of fiscal support during shocks had 'contributed to public debt ratcheting up over time'. Rennie warned that if nothing changes, 'this leaves future generations with less financial capacity to respond to shocks'. The recommendations from the report note the Government needs to get better at saving money when the economy is booming to ensure there is fiscal space to support the economy when times are grim. When times are grim, the Government should allow the 'automatic stabilisers' to kick in, spending money on increased benefit payments. Managing the ups and downs of the economy should mostly be left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion reached in Treasury's draft report, published earlier. 'Monetary policy changes can be reversed more readily and can often be implemented faster. The Government's spending and taxation decisions should generally seek to optimise long-run value for money rather than moderating economic cycles,' Treasury said. This does not mean there is no role for the Government. If monetary policy is constrained or at extremes – as it was at points during the pandemic – Government spending can kick in. Or, if interest rates can fall further, the Government could restrain spending to 'help moderate booms that would otherwise result in interest rates or the exchange rate becoming extremely high'. Treasury also said fiscal policy could be used to ease some of the distributional impacts of monetary policy, which can be blunt. Monetary policy during the pandemic was largely responsible for the housing boom and bust.