It is difficult to take issue with the arguments put forward by Professor Philpott in his review of "Handbook" for two reasons. One: because they are difficult to find, residing more in the offended tone of the review than in meaning. Two: because the few that do become visible are barely arguments at all but (to quote Professor Philpott's characterisation of the arguments put forward in "Handbook") "hypotheses sheltering under the guise of truth". Thus he tells us "It is the job of the university to seek the truth to teach the truth and not to be the instrument for changing society".

The review can be divided into two parts. The first is a series of attacks on the age and aspirations of the editors of and contributors to "Handbook". The second part is a set of polemical comments dispersed throughout the review. The first is hardly worth commenting on, the second is crucial since it deals with questions important to the university and to many students.

Examinations

Professor Philpott's "criticism" of the article on exams is hard to follow. The Professor wrote that the article "leaves the impression that not only do (exams) not matter but that they're positively harmful and that so too, by inference, is the process of learning that precedes them". This gives an erroneous impression: the article asserted that exams do matter, albeit because they are harmful. Further than this, however the article specifically refutes the contention that the process of learning does not matter' "What is learned at university (or what should be learned) is the ability to research and discern..." Neither does the article imply that the learning process is harmful; what it does imply is that learning for examination purposes is virtually useless. The real difficulty with the Professor's arguments on exams, however, lies with the next paragraph of his review: "It seems necessary to point out once again to people embarking on a university career(!), that the process of learning is and always has been hard work, often arduous and tedious and sometimes even boring but above all very demanding by way of effort on the part of a student (and even more so may I say on the part of the teacher). One of the greatest fallacies of this time is to assume that students by being simply exposed to knowledge will somehow acquire it through their mental pores by some subtle osmotic process". It may all be true, but what does any of it have to do with exams? One can only assume that the Professor sought to discredit the arguments put forward in "Handbook" by implying that their purpose was to make life easier for students. The argument put forward in the article was not that at all, but rather that examinations are expressive of an underlying ideology intended to be internalised by students as though it were an immutable fact of life. Far from refuting this point, Professor Philpott confirmed it when he wrote: "Students who approach their time here under the impression given by "Handbook's" article on exams viz. that exams don't matter—will find that they have wasted their time..." In other words, the purpose of a university education does not lie with the knowledge gained but rather with the piece of paper that purports to evidence that fact; knowledge that is not marketable is useless. So much for the university's purpose being to seek and teach the truth. The Professor goes on to say that not only will these aberrant students waste their time, also they will wast the taxpayers money ... as the "Handbook" article said "Ask yourself next time you work at a freezing works, or as a waitress, what good your education will do those working alongside you on a full-time basis the taxpayers. The truth about university graduates is that their services are for those that can afford them". Professor Philpott has simply failed to join issue.

Revolution at Victoria

Despite all this defence of examinations, however, Professor Philpott wrote that it "should, in any case, be noted that a virtual revolution in examination methods (pioneered by my own department) has been introduced in recent years at Victoria with very great accent on in-class assessment . . ." Accepting, for the moment, the accuracy of this statement it might well be asked, in light of the Professor's defence of examinations, what fault necessitated this "virtual revolution", or could it be that the Professor believes in change for change's sake? There may, however, be good reason to treat the Professor's contention re reforms with some scepticism: A study of the reforms worked by his department suggests that the changes are changes of form, rather than of substance.

This, then, was Professor Philpott's polemic in response to an article questioning the value and purpose of exams: a misstatement of the article's thrust, an assertion that the pursuit of knowledge is not easy, an assertion that exams "matter" and an assertion that the student who thinks otherwise is wasting his time. Hypotheses sheltering under the guise of truth indeed.

University Commandment

The same approach is evident in Professor Philpott's response to the Marxist views he found in "Handbook". Having chortled at the statement (made, incidentally, by an ex colleague of Professor Philpott) that "the bulk of academics . . . just simply don't know better and genuinely believe what they teach" (can academics not be wrong then?) he went on to quote extensively from two articles commenting on the need for change in society. "These pure Marxist views", he then wrote, "must be refuted". Here, one would be forgiven for thinking, we get down to the heart of the argument. But no, for Professor Philpott's immediate refutation consists of this: "It is the job of the university to seek the truth and teach the truth and not to be the instrument for changing society". Why? What stone tablet elaborates this commandment? We are not told. Having thus given a preliminary "refutation" of the pure Marxist views he found in "Handbook" the Professor went on to concede that there are "enormous ills in society". He then aserts that academics are aware of these ills and having denied that the university's task is to change society, says that "the special skills and techniques they (academics) possess are usually directed towards those improvements which can be effected in society". One is reminded of a cliche about having your cake and eating it too.

Refutation of Marxism

The reason why Professor Philpott's refutations of Marxism are so unsatisfactory is revealed in the next paragraph where he talks of "revolutionary amendment in the system of government or administration" as though change in government and administration were the essence of Marxism. Perhaps Professor Philpott should make himself more familiar with the views he seeks to refute — the thrust of the Marxist analysis is towards change in the economic base of society — the mediation between man and nature — which, the analysis goes, determines the nature of government and administration. However, according to Professor Philpott revolutionary change (of whatever kind) is out because rates of im-provement are limited by "the very nature of man himself". This unsupported assertion can be refuted in both practice (has the Professor not read any history?) and theory. The readiness to accept change depends to some degree on the perceived desirability of the change the perceived desirability of the change under discussion. Professor Philpott might do well to read some of the material available on this question. From it he might learn that a substSntial body of opinion holds that the nature of man is determined by the nature of society, that resistance to change on the part of men is a reflection of the resistance to change manifested by the formal political organs of their society, that the formal political organs of society resist change because powerful interests wish to remain powerful interests. Perhaps these theories are possible avenues to "truth" that Professor Philpott has not felt compelled to explore. All this, of course, does not establish the desirability of revolutionary or violent (and they are not necessarily the same thing) change (and nowhere did "Handbook" call for violent change). It does, however, indicate that the debate should not centre around village pump psychology but should concentrate, rather, on the nature of the "enormous ills" that confront us and the capability, or otherwise, of our present organs of decision making to effect the changes necessary to conquer them.

"Violence can destroy", Professor Philpott wrote. So the Vietnamese people have found out, and it was precisely in response to this destruction that the "self interested demagogues" to which Professor Philpott refers first turned their attention to the nature of the society which produced it. Many have become convinced that the seeds of this violence lie strongly locked within the structure of the societies whose troops journeyed so far to deliver the "constructive and creative" criticism which the Viet-namese people enjoyed. Further studies revealed the "enormous ills" to which the Professor referred - that the gap between the rich and poor of the world is widening, that crime rates are increasing, that the nature of labour is becoming more and more crushing and soul destroying in response to the "constructive and creative" criticism of industrial psychologists, that mental illness appears to be on the increase. The questions which these facts raise demand answers and it is not enough to assert, as did Professor Philpott, that "to some questions there are no answers".

The Duty of the University

"Finance for the university comes from the community; the Professor wrote, "Student politicians may deplore this situation, but deplore it as they will it is a fact..." Far from deploring this fact those involved in the production of "Handbook" point to it, point also to the fact that the University thus owes it to the whole community—not just the business community—to justify the expenditure. Thus if there are people in our society who are suffering physically or mentally it is the duty of the university to suggest and promote the changes that would bring an end to it.

Finally, the idiosyncratic nature of Professor Philpott's logic is revealed, once again, in his conclusion that students "deserved more from their student leaders than to be handed another Little Red School-book. Since the Professor's criticisms, by his own admission, related to only half of the "Handbook", since the Professor found the other half perfectly satisfactory, this is precisely what students got.

Professor Philpott seemed anxious to classify those involved in the production of "Handbook" as "student leaders", thus paving the way for the allegations of demagoguery that flow easily from his pen. Those involved with the production of "Handbook" don't claim to be student leaders. They were a group of students and staff who undertook to produce a publication that would provide information and the basis for discussion within the university. As Professor Philpott said, "Fools and knaves can be found on both sides of a contention". In his anxiety to classify those involved with the production of "Handbook as knaves Professor Philpott might have left himself little room to manoeuvre.