Towers Besieged: The Dilemma of the Creative University by Cyril S. Beishaw (review)

records has been at best perfunctory. The titles of the sections are too vague and there are no chapter headings. The list of museums, by province from east to west, is an imperfect index and lacks cross-references to the names of institutions. The index proper is incomplete and its effectiveness is impaired by the use of too many sub-sections. All authors quoted are not represented in the bibliography, which is haphazard. There are no footnotes and many sources are not given or are incompletely identified. Names are frequently misspelt, a fault to be attributed to the publisher as much as to the author. Finally, the absence of illustrations is to be deplored as no visual record of the architecture of Canadian museums exists so far. (SYBILLE PANTAZZI) Cyril S. Belshaw, Towers Besieged: The Dilemma of the Creative University. McClelland and Stewart, 224, $5.95 (paper) This book is, as far as I know, the first systematic attempt by a Canadian scholar to present the general theory of the university, and to see its activities in relationship to that theory. Professor Belshaw, however, is not writing a major textbook; he has strong convictions and he is deeply concerned about specific Canadian developments. General books on education are not noted for their stylistic grace, and this book is not an exception to the general rule. The movement of the argument, for instance, is constantly slowed up by a stolid, enumerative technique. Nevertheless, this is an important book, both as a general presentation and as a contribution to the Canadian debate. Professor Belshaw is concerned about the university as a centre of learning - the institution that generates 'inquiry and creativity' and expands 'cultural resources.' The book is a protracted attack on those who see the university as a mechanism for vocational processing. He has in mind some of the politicians and bureaucrats in his own province of British Columbia (to which he could add a strong deputation from Ontario ) who are content to see 'productivity' (the rapid and economic turning out of marketable degrees) as the sale justification for the university and the only criterion by which financial support should be awarded. These are the philistine critics of the right. But Professor Belshaw is no less scornful about fashionable critics of the left, the voices that rang through the sixties and can still be heard. Some of his best passages are careful analyses of the fervent irrationalities of Paul Goodman, Ivan llIich, and Herbert Marcuse. Professor Belshaw is stimulating on specific problems. Like so many critics of higher education today, he is unhappy about the rigidities of the departmental organization. He writes a little Wistfully about the possibility of breaking up departments as teaching and research units, and establishing what he calls 'collegiate faculties' or 'collegiate institutes,' which I gather would be interdisciplinary units concerned with specific academic objectives - 'centres' and 'institutes/ but with responsibility for teaching. The department would remain, but it would become essentially 'a disciplined, professional academy.' This proposal has its attractions, but it would be furiously resisted by most departments, especially by the departments in the humanities who see themselves as being brought in as service agents for disciplines with more immediate social goals. There is nothing that disturbs an English professor more than being asked to teach 'Pharmaceutical English' or 'Shakespeare for Urban Planners.' Professor Belshaw argues strongly for control of the university by the academic staff. I would agree with him that no university government today can be effective unless it is essentially directed by the full-time academic. The lay appointee, no matter how experienced in his own field, finds it difficult to understand the nature of the university, and often, despite his natural conservative instincts, joins with students to attack what he looks upon as faculty authoritarianism. This leads inevitably to rapid decline in academic values and standards. I agree enthusiastically with some sharp comments he makes on the use of student questionnaires in judging teaching ability. 'All they do,' he writes, 'is to flatter the student's ego and provide more material for argumentative academics' debate.' He suggests 'that the best indices of the man's teaching effect can be seen in...