My point simply is that, there are artists that are paid by taxes to work at universities to make art, to make propoganda on behalf of Democracy really, on behalf and in demonstration of a willingness to "accept a role as critic and conscience of society" (NZ. Ed. Act 1989) and in doing so publicly, demonstrate a fuctioning of free speach in the sharing and defending of difficult and delictate issues, such as, the act of making 'art' paid by the public purse. My condemnation of artists that work for universities in this manner is simply around the fact that they do not promote their work as paid for by the public, therefore they fail to "accept a role", that is the public have no idea that they exist in this way and in fact work quite hard to deny the role exists. It is my assertion that this fails to fulfil the legal standard that universites under the law are required to meet to be able to be called a university.