The opening address at the IAU Durban Conference in 2000 focused on three main topics: 1) Values in higher education - discussing the need to balance academic freedom with public accountability and prepare students for democratic citizenship. 2) Knowledge - noting the impact of technology and commercialization on knowledge production while emphasizing the need to maintain universities' critical functions. 3) Leadership - addressing the divide between academics and administrators and challenges to define universities' public role and bridge internal rifts through open communication.

1. IAU Durban Conference, August 20-25, 2000
11th General Conference: Universities as Gateway to the Future
Opening Address
Opening Address
by
Kader Asmal, Minister of Education of South Africa.
Introduction.
It is a pleasure to be present at this gathering and to welcome you to South Africa. More particularly. I
am delighted that the South African Universities Vice - Chancellors Association (SAUVCA) and the
University of Natal are hosting your Eleventh Quinquennial Conference: as it coincides with the
fiftieth anniversary of the founding of IAU, it is clearly a special occasion.
I am delighted at the internationalism evident in your membership of over 150 countries, and the
delegate list for this conference: it is a reminder that the IAU is a UNESCO-affiliated organisation and
shares that body's commitment to the availability of knowledge in free societies, to justice, human
dignity and solidarity. The hosting of this conference in South Africa. at the turn of the Millennium is
also a cause for celebration. Before 1994, this conference could not have taken place in South Africa.
I want to take this opportunity to salute those of you who supported our academic boycott during the
dark days of apartheid. Your support and solidarity was key to the international isolation of the
apartheid regime. Equally, the decision of the IAU to hold its conference in this country is
acknowledgement that South Africa has taken its rightful place in the international academic
community.
I am delighted also at an opportunity to spend half an hour doing what academicians have the luxury
of doing full-time: to reflect, to consider complex realities, and to search for meaning. As an ex-
academic myself, I am pleased to report that these habits of mind die -hard.
The title of your conference invites us to think of universities as "Gateways to the Future". Fair
enough: but gateways, like all portals, face in two directions. And it is highly pertinent to look back at
the recent past, to reflect for a moment on some of the momentous changes that have affected
universities in the fifty years since the IAU was founded. Perhaps it is only through an awareness of
these changes that one can think lucidly about what lies ahead, in the future, through the gateway.
Most of you have lived and worked through the changes 1 am identifying, so I shall be brief.
Allow me merely to remind you of a set of changes that have transformed universities and higher
education systems over the last 30 to 40 years. I talk from the vantage point of an academic who lived
through the changes which shaped higher education in Ireland during the heady days of the '60s
through to the ‘80s. More recently, my lens is that of a minister of education who has the task of
steering a higher education system into the 21st century.
Of course, each national system of higher education has its own distinctive features and history; and
the chronology and intensity of change varies from one country to another. But one of the most
striking features of this cluster of changes is that they are internationally recognisable. They have
occurred across the globe. affecting institutions and systems in every continent. Broadly speaking,
then, since the 1960s
There has been a rapid expansion of student numbers - and also in the number and size of universities.
The phenomenon has been dubbed "massification", and involves a shift from elite to mass higher
education. It is not simply a question of numbers: there have been profound changes in the social
profile of student populations. Statistically, students have become less male and less middle-class,
with more adult leamers and more part-time leamers. Historically, in South Africa, massification has
only been a reality for the white population. The higher education participation rate for white South
Africans peaked in the 1980s at around 70%, and has subsequently levelled at around 40%. In
contrast, the participation of black South Africans is increasing from unacceptably low levels to the
current 12%. Notwithstanding this, the typical student in South Africa is now likely to be a black
woman, in her early to mid-twenties.

2. Simultaneously, the tendency internationally has been a decrease in state funding for universities -
growth in student numbers has seen a fall in the level of public spending per student.
Thirdly, universities have broadly accepted the notion of partnership. That is: they have self-
consciously entered closer working relationships with other social actors - with the state and
parastatals, with the corporate world and with non-govemmental or community--based organisations.
They have oriented their curricula and research agenda more explicitly to national socio-economic
needs: and they have devised vocational and professional programmes in response to shifts in the
labour market. Ironically. our experience is that higher education institutions are more willing to
partner with social actors from outside the sector itself than from within. Partnerships do of course
exist between our universities and technikons, but these tend to be confined to relatively 'soft' areas
such as the sharing of library and other resources. Collaboration and partnerships at the level of
academic programmes are, however, less common.
Fourthly, universities have adapted to powerful notions of accountability for public funds. They have
become subject to elaborate systems of quality control, audits, and reviews. They have - as the
literature puts it - entered into new, formal relations with the regulatory state.
Fifthly, there have been fundamental changes in the ways in which knowledge is produced,
transmitted, preserved and applied. I am thinking not only of the dramatic acceleration of information
and communication technologies; but also of the rise of so--called Mode 2 knowledge production. Not
to put too fine a point on it, universities have in recent decades lost what they enjoyed for centuries: a
virtual monopoly of knowledge production and of high level research. However, this may not
necessarily be the case in developing countries where research in industry is underdeveloped and
higher education institutions continue to be the main producers of knowledge.
Sixth, as they have become larger and more complex institutions, universities have also experienced
far-reaching changes in the ways in which they govern and structure themselves. Two main changes
have taken place. For some forty years, university governance has seen a shift from collegiality
towards more managerial practices. And, especially in the last twenty years. there has been a new
emphasis on stakeholder interests - both internal and external stakeholders - in university governance.
In South Africa, unique statutory structures called 'institutional forums' have been established to give
effect to this.
Lastly, we have seen the unprecedented growth of private and trans-national higher education. As
there has been a decline in state funding for universities, institutions have sought new markets. We are
yet to see the full impact of this trend. But what is clear for countries like ours is that unless private
and trans-national higher education is carefully regulated, it has the potential to undermine the
development and sustainability of our system as a whole. My concerns are in no way motivated by
narrow protectionist agendas or by national chauvinism. On the contrary, there are numerous
examples of genuine partnerships, especially between local higher education institutions and
international institutions. In fact. these partnerships, often supported through inter-governmental
arrangements, have been critically important in assisting South African institutions to build their
research and teaching capacities, especially after years of isolation from the international academic
community.
And in consequence of these changes, most of you inhabit institutions and systems that are both larger
and more complex than they used to be. They are more competitive; more technologically
sophisticated; more international in the mix of staff and students; more responsive to external needs:
more flexible and variegated in their offerings; and they are increasingly required to adapt to
turbulence and rapid environmental shifts. "May you live in interesting times" is a splendidly
ambiguous Chinese blessing. It certainly applies to modem universities!
It is in this context of accelerating change that I shall now accept the invitation of the conference
organisers and peer ahead. through the gateway to the-future. I will follow the three main questions set
for your consideration: What values? What Knowledge? What leadership? and attempt some
comments on each of these.
What values?
This may be the most important issue that you confront over the next few days. In the light of what I
have said so far about change and discontinuity, the conundrum poses itself: can institutions in the
throes of adaptation and transformation preserve and sustain certain fundamental values? Can they

3. adhere to such foundation ideas of the university as the free and unfettered pursuit of knowledge., the
independence from outside interference of intellectual activities: and the conviction that teaching. and
academic enquiry must be open-ended, undogmatic and self-critical?
Make no mistake about it. These core values have been hard-won. They chart successive beach-heads
established by universities over the centuries - their intellectual independence from the Church. from
the state, and from special interests. They represent much that endures from the Enlightenment, from
the Age of Reason. They demarcate a very special zone of human activity: a zone of inquisitive,
skeptical, and ruthlessly critical thought. 1 am sure that you esteem such values, and that therefore you
will discuss the extent to which they are under threat, and the extent to which they continue to
underpin the purpose and vision of your own universities.
For us in South Africa it has become essential to interrogate the values that underpin the
transformation of our higher education system. What do the fundamental values of higher education
mean in the context of, for example, the stark imbalances in the race and gender composition of our
academic staff; and curricula that do not engage with the key social issues and development agenda of
our society? The need to protect and cherish academic freedom is entrenched in our constitution, just
as institutional autonomy is a fundamental principle that guides our policy and legislative framework
for higher education. However, there is no moral basis for using the principle of institutional
autonomy as a pretext for resisting democratic change or in defence of mismanagement. Institutional
autonomy is. in our view, inextricably linked to the demands of public accountability.
There is another, very specific, educational value that I want to commend to this conference. It
deserves our urgent attention. It concerns the relationship between university education and citizenship
- between the academy and the body politic.
We are fortunate. We live in an age that has seen the global advance of democracy and defeat of
colonialism and various forms of authoritarianism. Conference delegates will forgive me if I state the
obvious. For us in South Africa, the overthrow of an illegitimate and racist regime and its succession
by a freely-elected people's government is a matter of pride, a source of elation and an over-riding
political value. But let me ask the South Africans present: what is the role of our universities in
justifying this pride sustaining the elation, and affirming the value? And permit me to ask our
international visitors: how do your universities commit themselves to such values? How are your
students prepared for democratic citizenship? How do your curricula, your research agendas, and your
outreach programmes connect with the body politic? How satisfied are You with the interface between
the academy and the public arena?
I am mindful of a major attempt in the United States to link universities and colleges to their civic
purposes: it is the Campus Compact, founded just fifteen years ago. Campus Compact "is a national
coalition of college and university presidents committed to the civic purposes of higher education". A
Campus Compact declaration signed by over 300 universities makes this telling point:
‘This country cannot afford to educate a generation that acquires knowledge without ever
understanding how that knowledge can benefit society or how to influence democratic decision-
making. We must teach the skills and values of democracy, creating innumerable opportunities for our
students to practice and reap the results of the real. hard work of citizenship'
In South Africa, a programme called CHESP - Community and Higher Education Service Partnerships
- is running a pilot project with seven universities, including the University of Natal. Like Campus
Compact, the CHESP approach is to promote active community service by students - but not as a
voluntary, add-on, extra-curricular activity. Instead, the intention is to integrate specific forms of
community service into the mainstream teaching and research functions of the participating
universities.
In a fledgling democracy, this combination of service activity and tertiary education is especially
important. It gives concrete expression to the civic purposes of education. It does so by making civic
participation and social responsibility part of knowledge acquisition and an object of scholarly
reflection.
What knowledge?
As university leaders, you will be acutely aware that "knowledge" is no longer a bland Abstract noun
conventionally associated with the academy. Instead, you are aware of how much is invested in
concepts like "the knowledge society" and "knowledge workers". You know how fundamentally

4. technology has affected the ways in which, information is transmitted, preserved and applied - and that
information is the raw material out of which knowledge is fashioned. You have been alerted by
Michael Gibbons and others to the fact that profound changes have recently taken place in the
production of knowledge - especially the emergence of what is called Mode 2 knowledge production.
Writes Gibbons:
‘The main change, as far as universities are concerned, is that knowledge production and
dissemination - research and teaching - are no longer self-contained. quasi-monopolistic practices
carried out in relative institutional isolation. Today universities are only one amongst the many actors
involved in the production of knowledge.’
I am not going to expand on these themes. Instead, I want to touch upon another feature of knowledge
- that is, an increasing and uncritical tendency for knowledge to be commodified. We all know that
there are pressures on universities to become more efficient, more entrepreneurial and more responsive
to societal needs. Well and good: these are desirable attributes. But to ask universities to be more
business-like is not the same as asking them to become like businesses. The American Council on
Education warned recently that ‘The wholesale grafting of models. techniques and languages from
business to higher education is dangerous'*.3 And, amplifying this view, a South African academic
emphasises the pitfalls:
‘Research is good only when it creates new products, writing labs help future employees to write
better reports, and foreign languages support trade. Once universities concede these terms, research
which does not yield new products is pointless. And courses which don't feed job skills are a waste of
time... When universities uncritically adopt the crude mechanisms of market supply and- demand they
yield their own right to define the nature and goals of higher education...'
Knowledge that is commodified loses its critical edge. Higher education must not only be acquisitive:
it must remain inquisitive and skeptical. Universities must defend a history of intellectual
emancipation that spans seven centuries rather than surrender to the exigencies of the market.
I am sure that you will also be familiar with attempts in the World Trade Organisation to include
'education as a service'. I strongly believe that such moves should be resisted.
What leadership?
Closely related to the pressures of the market are the new ways in which universities are led and how
they are governed. At the heart of this change is a shift from collegial to more managerial forms of
university governance. The reasons for this move have been suggested already. As universities have
become larger, more complex, more accountable and more cost-conscious, there h as been an
inevitable and necessary growth of managerial expertise. The old days of the "donnish dominion" are
no more. They can be visited in the novels of C P Snow, but there is not much point in wishing that
they could somehow be restored. To yearn for the old, cosy collegialism is to ignore the changes that I
outlined at the beginning of this talk.
The real challenge to university leadership is different. It acknowledges that universities have become
more managerial; and it recognises that this has created a gulf between academics and administrators.
We cannot ignore the voice of someone like Donald Kennedy, past President of Stanford University
who warns that academic staff have experienced severe crises of morale and status, and that they feel
alienated from administrators.5 The central issue is how leadership can address these contradictions.
Conclusion and Five Challenges.
Let me conclude, then, with five challenges to university leaders - to the delegates of this conference.
• First, you must find ways of bridging the divide between academics and administrators. You must
couple effective and decisive management with the disciplinary expertise and intellectual passion of
academics.
• Second, you will have to address rifts within the academy itself. The British educationist, Ronald
Barnett, throws down the gauntlet:
"The new managerialism has only just begun. It has in front of it an ever greater challenge of helping
the university become the academic community it always claimed it was."
University leaders must bring academics across the campus to address large issues jointly; they must
open communication processes in which voices are heard. "The managerial role. has to be re-
conceptualised as opening up the possibility of academic community. 1.6

5. • Third, what about the social standing and purpose of higher education more generally?
How do you propose to protect the near-extinct status of the species of ‘public intellectual' Does it
matter to you that the esteem of higher education in society at large is failing? Of course it matters: but
how do you propose to define the public role of your institution?
• Fourth, can the most innovative managers amongst you be self-critical, reflexive and open-ended in
what you do?
You are aware of the practical restraints, the brute realities of the environment in which you operate.
Are you also prepared to interrogate these imperatives, to peer beyond the prevailing wisdom, and to
engage with the possibility of alternative outcomes? Can you keep in your field of vision what
universities have always done best? Does your institution insist upon the intellectual freedom of all
learning and teaching? Does higher education on your campus hold up to society that special mirror?
Not the one that merely asks. "Who is the fairest of us all?" - but the one that demands, ---What can
we best become?"
• Last, you must honestly and rigorously examine the premises that govern your
international partnerships and enterprises. Whose interests are being furthered and at what cost?
This conference posits universities as the gateway to the future. I have suggested that the gateway
before us is narrow, and the threshold is high. But ahead is the future: and university-based
intellectuals are in the pole position. Since the dawn of the European Renaissance, universities have
insisted on thinking in the future tense. Today, on the putative dawn of the African Renaissance, the
IAU must remain true to this legacy. Know Your past. Interrogate the present. And imagine the future.
References
1. Presidents' Declaration on the Civic Responsibility of Higher Education, December 1998, Campus
Compact.
2. Michael Gibbons, Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century, Washington DC, 1999, The
World Bank,, p. 60.
3. M. F. Green, P. Eckel and B. Hill, ‘Change in Higher Education: It's Not the Same as in
Corporations, Washington DC, 1998, American Council on Education, p.2.
4. Eve Bertelsen, 'The Real Transformation: The Marketisation of Higher Education", Social
Dynamics, 24, 2 (Summer 1998),, p. 141.
5. Donald Kennedy, Academic Duty (Cambridge, 1998 Harvard University Press, p. 273.
6. Ronald Barnett, Higher Education: A Critical Business (Buckingham, 1997, Society for Research in
Higher Education & Open University Press, p. 59.