Harvard stood up to Trump. Our top universities could not afford to be so brave
Even the Group of Eight (Go8) – Australia's leading research-intensive institutions – are deeply reliant on government policies. The Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s centralised university funding under federal control, introducing performance-based funding. Since then, government grants have remained important, while international student fees have become critical.
In 2023, the University of Sydney earned 42.6 per cent – nearly $1.5 billion – of its revenue from international student fees. Government grants contributed just 9.6 per cent. Together, these politically sensitive streams made up more than half of its income. For the sector, the pattern is similar.
International students comprise 35 per cent of enrolments at Go8 universities; Sydney's are the highest at 47 per cent. This over-reliance poses serious risks. Recent visa restrictions have already strained finances. Proposed caps on international students could further destabilise the sector.
Australia's centralised university sector gives the federal government broad powers to set funding conditions – including curriculum, performance targets and fees – under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This opens the door for future governments to link grants to ideological demands.
Many Liberal politicians already accuse universities of promoting ' woke indoctrination'. Meanwhile, they scapegoat international students – who occupy just 4 per cent of all rentals while bankrolling universities and boosting the economy – for housing unaffordability.
Loading
Australia invests just 1.68 per cent of GDP in research and development – well below the OECD average and far short of the government's 3 per cent target. This leaves universities underfunded and reliant on unstable income. Some Trump policies pose a direct threat to Australian universities. In 2024, they received about $400 million in US government funding, now at risk.
The damage is already visible. A recent Nature study paints a bleak picture. Australian universities are slipping in global rankings as collaboration and research funding decline. Fewer than one in five would recommend an academic career, citing high levels of burnout, bullying and job insecurity. This erosion of talent is at risk of accelerating due to ongoing funding cuts.
A compounding issue is the metrics-driven approach to university management, another legacy of the Dawkins 'revolution ' – which even John Dawkins now calls ' completely out of date'. Since then, universities have been incentivised to maximise measurable outputs: publications in prestigious journals, competitive government grants, enrolments of fee-paying students and completion rates.
These metrics can be manipulated and this risks undermining educational quality, institutional autonomy and research integrity. As University of Sydney sociologist Raewyn Connell has noted: 'Since no neoliberal government, Labor or Coalition, is going to put tax money into even one Australian university on a scale that would make it look much like Harvard, the real effect of the league-table rhetoric is to provide a permanent justification for the vice-chancellors to increase fees and trawl for corporate money.'
Loading
The result is a sector under pressure with limited autonomy. A future government with authoritarian leanings could tie funding to ideological compliance – curbing DEI initiatives, reshaping curriculums or restricting protest. And unlike Harvard, Australian universities lack the financial, legal or political capital to resist.
To protect academic freedom and institutional independence, the sector needs real structural reform. This includes diversifying funding to reduce reliance on international student fees and ensuring performance metrics cannot be weaponised. Most importantly, academic freedom must be legally protected – just as Germany enshrines it in its constitution.
Australia should also strengthen industry-university partnerships (common in Europe but rare here), philanthropic giving and greater public investment. Tax reform could help ensure that wealthy individuals and big businesses – whose tax burdens have declined for decades – pay their fair share to fund public education.
Harvard reminds us that defending academic freedom requires not just courage but financial resources, legal protections and institutional independence. Australia's higher education sector is already stretched. In 2023, 25 out of 39 universities ran at a loss (up from just three in 2019). Real funding for domestic students fell 8 per cent in a decade, with sector-wide losses of $1.2 billion.
If we are serious about our universities, we must rethink how they are funded, decentralise control and embed stronger protections for institutional autonomy.
Harvard's stand should be praised but not romanticised. It was enabled by privilege, legal insulation and political strategy. If we want Australian universities to stand firm in the face of ideological pressure, we must strengthen their foundations now. Because if the screws are ever turned here, we will lack not courage, but capacity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Ford Ranger PHEV built for choice not compliance, says exec
Ford Australia has launched the Ranger PHEV to broaden customer choice, not meet emissions regulations, according to senior global product executive Jim Baumbick. The Ranger PHEV joins a growing collection of electrified Ford models in Australia that includes the all-electric Mustang Mach-E SUV and E-Transit and E-Transit Custom vans, as well as a plug-in hybrid version of the Transit Custom. All will serve as key pillars of Ford's initial response to the New Vehicle Emissions Standard (NVES) in Australia, with sales of the greener vehicles set to help offset fines accrued by dirtier models in the lineup such as diesel versions of the Ranger and the Everest SUV, as well as the petrol-powered Mustang sports car. However, Mr Baumbick says that Ford was working on diversifying its Ranger lineup well before the strict new emissions regulations were announced, and that the Ranger PHEV complements its other ute offerings. Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now. Supplied Credit: CarExpert 'This is not a compliance play, it's a portfolio of options,' Mr Baumbick told Australian media at the international launch of the Ranger PHEV. 'At Ford, we want to let the customers choose so they can pick the right tool for the job. 'The regulatory requirements in Australia have changed very rapidly, faster than normal process. But we already had this in development, and we'll continue to enhance the portfolio. 'We're launching it now, but we didn't do this because of the new requirements. It's part of our overall mission to offer a portfolio of options.' Despite his insistence that the plug-in hybrid version of the Ranger wasn't an emissions-led project, Mr Baumbick admitted that Ford was caught on the back foot by tightening regulations across the globe. Supplied Credit: CarExpert The ink officially dried on the Australian Government's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) at the start of this year, bringing with it regulations designed to reduce the carbon footprint of the Australian car market. While the NVES came into effect on January 1, 2025, penalties won't start being accrued until July 1. 'Going electric isn't a light switch,' explained Mr Baumbick. 'We're trying to move as fast as we can, and when things change quickly there are development lead times, so stay tuned. 'It's going to be a portfolio of solutions over a longer arch of time. We're going to continue to improve the efficiency and emissions of our systems and a migration to hybrids over time will make a big contribution to the challenge of reducing emissions. EV will play a significant role, but it's got to be the right tool for the job.' Supplied Credit: CarExpert As for the other measures Ford is set to take to survive in the Australian market, the brand is committed to shielding consumers from the financial burden of NVES fines. 'We're not jacking up prices due to our regulatory status,' Mr Baumbick asserted. 'As we always have, we continue to work on our broader mission to improve year over year. Every model is going to continue to improve.' MORE: Explore the Ford Ranger showroom
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Ford Ranger PHEV built for choice not compliance, says exec
Ford Australia has launched the Ranger PHEV to broaden customer choice, not meet emissions regulations, according to senior global product executive Jim Baumbick. The Ranger PHEV joins a growing collection of electrified Ford models in Australia that includes the all-electric Mustang Mach-E SUV and E-Transit and E-Transit Custom vans, as well as a plug-in hybrid version of the Transit Custom. All will serve as key pillars of Ford's initial response to the New Vehicle Emissions Standard (NVES) in Australia, with sales of the greener vehicles set to help offset fines accrued by dirtier models in the lineup such as diesel versions of the Ranger and the Everest SUV, as well as the petrol-powered Mustang sports car. However, Mr Baumbick says that Ford was working on diversifying its Ranger lineup well before the strict new emissions regulations were announced, and that the Ranger PHEV complements its other ute offerings. Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal. Browse now. 'This is not a compliance play, it's a portfolio of options,' Mr Baumbick told Australian media at the international launch of the Ranger PHEV. 'At Ford, we want to let the customers choose so they can pick the right tool for the job. 'The regulatory requirements in Australia have changed very rapidly, faster than normal process. But we already had this in development, and we'll continue to enhance the portfolio. 'We're launching it now, but we didn't do this because of the new requirements. It's part of our overall mission to offer a portfolio of options.' Despite his insistence that the plug-in hybrid version of the Ranger wasn't an emissions-led project, Mr Baumbick admitted that Ford was caught on the back foot by tightening regulations across the globe. The ink officially dried on the Australian Government's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) at the start of this year, bringing with it regulations designed to reduce the carbon footprint of the Australian car market. While the NVES came into effect on January 1, 2025, penalties won't start being accrued until July 1. 'Going electric isn't a light switch,' explained Mr Baumbick. 'We're trying to move as fast as we can, and when things change quickly there are development lead times, so stay tuned. 'It's going to be a portfolio of solutions over a longer arch of time. We're going to continue to improve the efficiency and emissions of our systems and a migration to hybrids over time will make a big contribution to the challenge of reducing emissions. EV will play a significant role, but it's got to be the right tool for the job.' As for the other measures Ford is set to take to survive in the Australian market, the brand is committed to shielding consumers from the financial burden of NVES fines. 'We're not jacking up prices due to our regulatory status,' Mr Baumbick asserted. 'As we always have, we continue to work on our broader mission to improve year over year. Every model is going to continue to improve.'
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Baby brain: Why MAGA's pro-natalist plans are ill-conceived
America's politicians have babies on the brain. In February, President Donald Trump told officials to make IVF cheaper. Even without its procreator-in-chief, Elon Musk, the White House is thought to be working on a bigger package of pro-natalist policies. Vice-President J.D. Vance is keen. Mr Trump says he favours a $US5000 (about $7700) handout for new parents. In Britain, meanwhile, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, a MAGA-ish opposition party, has proposed tax breaks and benefits to encourage women to have more children. Politicians have long feared the fiscal consequences of an ageing population, with too few young workers supporting legions of pensioners. Governments in places with very low birth rates, such as Japan and South Korea, have spent billions trying to reverse the decline, with little success. The new pro-natalist policies of the transatlantic right differ from older ones in that they are more targeted at working-class women, whose fertility rate has fallen the most. That might make them a bit more effective. But not at a reasonable cost, or without creating perverse incentives. Previous attempts to deliver a baby boom have either failed or been eye-wateringly expensive, relative to the number of extra births they deliver. Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, started a big pro-natal push in 2011, and has since given parents everything from tax breaks and cash handouts to free child care. These policies cost a staggering 5.5 per cent of the country's GDP annually – more than almost any government will spend on an ageing population in any year between now and 2050. In February, mothers of two were promised a lifelong exemption from income tax. Hungary's fertility rate rose to 1.6 children per woman in 2018, from 1.2 in 2011, making it a poster child for populist pro-natalists everywhere. However, it has since dipped, suggesting handouts encouraged some mums not to have more babies, but to have the same number sooner. Other countries, including Japan, Norway and Poland, have tried tax breaks, handouts, maternity leave, subsidised child care and even state-sponsored dating, to little effect. Such policies mostly soften the blow to the finances and career prospects of professional women from having children, without persuading them to have more. Like Mr Orban, both Mr Farage and Mr Vance see pro-natalism as a way to boost the native population over the immigrants they so dislike. However, they would not spend as lavishly as Hungary, and they would focus the cash more narrowly on poorer parents. Mr Farage would scrap a cap on benefits, which stops families claiming benefits for more than two children, and boost the threshold below which earnings are exempt from income tax for one half of a married couple. Mr Trump's handouts would be a bigger relief for poor households than rich ones. Underpinning these policies is an assumption that poorer women are more likely to respond to incentives to have more children. Indeed, their fertility rates do seem more elastic than those of professional women. Whereas the fertility rates of older, college-educated women have remained fairly steady over the past six decades, most of the collapse in fertility in America and Britain since 1980 stems from younger and poorer women having fewer children, particularly from unplanned pregnancies. Loading In 1994, the average age of a first-time American mother without a university degree was 20. Today, about two-thirds of women without degrees in their 20s have never given birth. Mr Trump's and Mr Farage's policies might therefore lead to more babies being born than the approaches of places like Norway, which focus on offering child care, a benefit that professional women tend to take up.
