University pioneers cultural diversity policy

By Dewi Anggraeni

MELBOURNE (JP): The Hanson phenomenon has damaged Australia's image and caused a flurry of activity at home. But not all of it is negative. It has prompted some soul-searching exercises among intellectuals and the average Australian.

By now it should be clear that Pauline Hanson has not single- handedly started a race and hate campaign against all non-whites in society.

Some white Australians have long suspected that all social ills were caused by Aborigines demanding too much, and too many Asians coming to the country and snapping up too many things. But these people never voiced their opinions publicly.

People keep silent for a variety of reasons. First, it is not easy to find a public forum where everybody can voice his or her opinion. Even when there is a forum, most people shy away because they do not want to make fools of themselves in case they are wrong.

Second, most Australians are happy to complain privately but have strong reservations about publicly criticizing a particular group.

So Hanson, whatever her real motivations, became the rallying point for people who wanted to find scapegoats for every social problem. It is easy and simple from now on. Just follow the leader and you get a great deal of media attention, nationally and regionally.

Interestingly, the same issues that drove the Hanson phenomenon, namely Aboriginal reconciliation and the internationalization of Australian society, have also prompted the soul-searching.

An initiative of the prestigious University of Melbourne in Australia, is a case in point. The university has taken steps to draft a policy which recognizes the cultural diversity in the community. The policy was already underway when Hanson was propelled to fame with her anti-Aborigine, anti-Asian maiden speech in parliament last year.

The push for this policy came from different directions. People at the university were daily and continuously affected by the problems of an increasingly diverse culture.

Among these were the student support services, the teaching staff and the administrative staff. Without a real policy they needed to devise means of handling problems themselves, often duplicating or contradicting each other.

Toward the end of 1996, with the Vice Chancellor Alan Gilbert's support, a working group was founded and a senior research assistant, Lisa Ting, was appointed. Submissions from members of the university were called and Ting also completed a comprehensive survey, speaking to over 300 people from the campus.

Right from the start Ting knew she was touching on sensitive, and possibly controversial, issues such as disability and homosexuality, internationalization and Aboriginal issues. However she did not shy away from the difficult aspects of her task.

Ting admits that internationalization was the trigger but emphasizes that it is "only one aspect of cultural diversity". Yet it has taken center stage, it seems, because it is closely linked to marketing. This is one of the effects of opening up Australian universities to full-fee paying, overseas students.

"That is internationalization in the narrowest sense of the word," Ting said. Put in any context there is no denying that it alone is a sufficiently complex field of work.

Several forums and workshops have been held to shape the draft policy. It now consists of three main parts:

a. The imperative: recognizing that cultural diversity in the university is a strength and an asset. It is not an option but a current reality.

b. The vision: valuing this strength and asset. In so doing, this opens up teaching, research and services, creating an intellectual environment and a culture to promote a global and international outlook.

c. The commitment: to realize the vision.

On Aug. 7, the final forum was held in the Council Chamber of the university's Law School. Here too the implementation options of the policy were discussed.

As an observer of this forum, what stood out was the determination of the working group to make the policy successful. The policy clearly needs to serve and satisfy a variety of interest groups.

Unless all these groups believed in, signed up for and accepted the policy, it would always encounter barriers. There would always be someone who felt disadvantaged, disenfranchised or unheeded.

One fundamental issue is whether or not there should be a separate body to implement the policy. The advantage of having a policy body is that everybody -- students and teaching and administrative staff alike -- knows where to address their queries and complaints, where to go for specific training and where to find a possible solution for a problem.

The disadvantage of having such a body is the inclination of people outside the group to feel less responsible for any problems relating to the policy. After all there are special officials formally appointed to take that responsibility off their shoulders.

Many in the workshops expressed the belief that instead of creating a separate body, the policy should use the existing structure and resources. It would be accountable for any outcomes and report directly to the university's highest authority, the Office of the Vice Chancellor.

The document, as such, is still evolving and the final report will probably take two or three months to finalize. However, considering the commitment of representatives in senior positions, Lisa Ting's statement that implementation will begin in 1998 sounds very believable.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Melbourne.