From which graduates of the program should have:
"a clearer sense of their role in the broader national security community and the importance of ongoing engagement; an enhanced capacity to lead or contribute to collaborative strategydevelopment within government, and to build networks of cooperation with areas of nationalsecurity expertise outside government."
Suddenly, one of the key departments in the NIPP, the NSC, seems more-so an extensionof the APS than an independent policy institute. But then again, it's not meant to be.Within the modern university, the battle being fought is not merely one of money andpower, but of subservience to money and power through academic culture. This is theessential dimension of the strategy, and indeed, possibly the most subtle and insidious. Inestablishing an institution within the bounds of the ANU, servicing the government andserviced by the government, power protects the cultures that establish power. It is herethat we must recall possibly the most famous of Sun Tzu's analects: "[u]ltimate excellencelies not in winning every battle, but in defeat the enemy without ever fighting."
The academic cultures which resonate across the world today are reminiscent of corporate reptiles whom with each passing year gradually shed their vestiges of humanityin view of something more tangibly calculable. It is lauded as processes of accountability,productivity, responsibility, fiscal security and most importantly in terms of relevance.Relevance is the critical term behind all these rational obfuscations when it comes tocultural practices. Throughout history, the determining of relevance functions to preclude,exclude and define that which is, that which can, that which should, that which is not,cannot, should not and therefrom will and will not. Adorno and Horkheimer were trenchantin their critique of such delimiting practices wherein "[t]hinking objectifies itself to becomean automatic, self-activating process; an impersonation of the machine that it producesitself so that ultimately the machine can replace it."
The key issue is against what system of values is the relevance of academia to beworthy of support or un-worthy of support via the university and the government? Again,this is not hyperbole, Ian Chubb has admitted this already as the NIPP's purpose is to"conduct research relevant to the public policy priorities of the government."
It is clear that we face a contestation of academic cultures. In view of the declaration of the NIPP, it is also clear that the system of values against which academia is deemed tobe relevant and "good"s one which accedes independent freedom and therein ethicalresponsibility to the commands of structural authority and power. The culture ingratiatedand imposed by such institutions as the NIPP is one of obeisance, of truth only if and whenpower deems truth to be necessary to the operations of good policy. Furthermore, itenables power to add another dimension of faux legitimacy before the media and other institutions. From now on government can indicate publicly to the institute and declarethem as independent assessments of truth concerning a host of issues and power will