| subtext | |
|
|
ISSUE ONE 12 December 2005 Every fortnight (unless the editors decide otherwise!) Free All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors at lancaster.ac.uk ***************************************************** PLEASE DOWNLOAD AND PRINT OR DELETE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER RECEIPT.
BACK ISSUES ARE ARCHIVED AT www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext CONTENTS 1. INAUGURAL EDITORIAL 2. SENATE REPORT 3. COMMENT: THE PRO-CHANCELLOR 4. PERTINENT QUESTIONS: CONSULTANCY AND ITS COSTS 5. LANCASTER'S NEW MISSION: WEAPONEERING FOR LIFE? 6. AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY 7. LETTERS ***************************************************** 1. INAUGURAL EDITORIAL The last few months have been interesting ones for many of us in the University community. It will have escaped the notice of few that certain events have given rise to remarkable levels of distrust, anger and resentment as well as, more positively, the awakening of a certain solidarity and activism. It would be a mistake to attribute these developments to single issues alone. Rather, the prosecution of the so-called 'George Fox Six' and the peculiarly heavy-handed approach to the reform of our corporate governance should be seen as symptoms of much wider developments that have been subtly spreading their tentacles for some years now. Indeed, these two issues seem to dovetail neatly. First, with the GF6 we have what many (most?) consider to be a badly misjudged decision taken by a small conclave of three individuals without consultation, while secondly, we have proposals for a streamlined and democracy-dissolving approach to corporate governance which would only exacerbate the very problems that gave rise to the GF6 case in the first place. In the midst of all this, it became increasingly obvious that the University
community lacks an independent forum in which such crucially important
issues can be discussed openly, honestly and without reservation. More widely, we hope also to contribute in some small way to the task of enhancing that sense of community and collegiality that has been sadly diluted in recent years. In sum, we could do worse than follow the late Gordon Inkster (see www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~rowlings/Inkytext/) and adopt as what our esteemed managers would call our 'mission statement' an adapted clause in our now often-forgotten Royal Charter: 'The object of "subtext" shall be to advance knowledge, wisdom and understanding by teaching and research and by the example of its corporate life.' ***************************************************** 2. SENATE REPORT [Health warning: this is a view of Senate proceedings as seen through the eyes of subtext. The 'official' minutes may be found on the web page of the Academic Registrar.] It is common knowledge that Senate has in recent years become a supine shadow of its former self. Indeed, such grumblings were heard as long ago as the 1990s. Matters these days are not helped by the brisk and often defensive manner in which meetings are chaired. There have always been some members who have shown themselves willing to exert their constitutional authority and we can only hope that others may be encouraged to follow suit. At Senate on 23rd November The Vice-Chancellor paid tribute to retiring Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Colleges and Student Affairs, Mr. Alan Whitaker and recorded his thanks 'for the sound advice he had given to many members of the University'. On this occasion at least, the V-C spoke for all Senators present. The University Secretary reported on the latest developments with the Working Party on Corporate Governance, particularly in light of the unanimously hostile reception received at Court. She revealed that the Working Party had enlarged its membership by including Brian Heron (former Pro-Chancellor), Claire Hensman (outgoing Deputy Pro-Chancellor) and Stanley Henig (member of Council and vociferous critic of the WP proposals). It remains to be seen whether Court will consider this enlargement to be sufficiently representative. It is interesting to note that two other individuals were approached and declined (Peter Rowe due to pressure of work, and a representative from LUSU who are not participating due to their opposition to the emerging proposals), and yet no attempt was made to find any alternatives. The V-C made a statement on the recent elections to a search committee to appoint the new PVC for Colleges and Student Experience. He expressed his unhappiness that the colleges and LUSU had produced what he described as a 'slate' of candidates and that they had engaged in tactical voting. What angered many Senators was the fact that he several times used the phrase 'I am sure Senate will agree...' without giving Senate any opportunity to express its views. As many Senators see nothing untoward about such tactical voting (indeed, it has been a widely accepted practice in the democratic process in the UK and elsewhere), it may be thought that the V-C should hesitate before taking the agreement of Senators for granted. David Denver certainly did make his displeasure known at the way in which Senate votes were being conducted. An expert on elections, he complained that he had not been given an opportunity to vote against a motion to which he was opposed and that other votes had been conducted in a similarly perfunctory way. After this, the manner of conducting the votes improved, but we shall have to hope that members of Senate continue to keep a watchful eye, as Professor Denver did. There was some discussion of how the 'variable fees' would be financially reported. In particular, it was pointed out that subject awards and scholarships would be treated as expenditure, while income-related bursaries would be averaged across departments. Senators raised the prospects that some departments may operate tactically in order to minimise their expenditure (e.g. encourage students to switch majors to subjects that do not carry subject awards). Tony Gatrell (Dean of Arts and Social Sciences) expressed the hope that departments would act in such a way as to transcend departmental self-interest. We can all only hope that he is right, but it is worth pointing out that the only reason departments may be tempted to behave in a less idealistic way is because of the intense pressure that they receive from above in terms of their net contributions. The pernicious effects of focusing unduly on net contributions is a topic for a future issue, perhaps.... ***************************************************** 3. COMMENT: THE PRO-CHANCELLOR As has been widely reported (e.g. in Scan), the proposals, produced by a working party chaired by the University’s Pro-Chancellor, Bryan Gray, to change the University’s corporate governance, were roundly criticised at University Court in October. The Pro-Chancellor is a senior lay member of the University, responsible for chairing University Council, and Gray, a local businessman, was appointed to this position for a five-year term in 2003. The major objections to the proposals were that they sought to centralise and concentrate decision-making powers in the hands of the Pro-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. Gray’s proposed ‘reforms’ would limit this size of University Council (the University’s supreme policy-making body) and give the Pro-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor extra powers in determining who would sit on this body, primarily through a 'nominations committee' chaired by Gray. Gray’s attempt to grab additional powers was not lost on members of Court, who saw the proposals as flying in the face of Lancaster’s tradition of democratic governance. One member, Lord Taylor, described Gray and the Vice-Chancellor as 'Mutt and Jeff' (we are not sure which is which) and pointed out that while they might think they could run the University together, this was undemocratic. In his presentation to Court, Gray (inadvertently, it would appear) referred
to the University’s ‘shareholders’ (instead of 'stakeholders',
one assumes) - a striking slip of the tongue suggesting that Gray is incapable
of distinguishing between a ‘business’ and a ‘university’.
One worries about people who are incapable of such distinctions, being
in positions of power and responsibility in universities. One wonders,
indeed, what qualifications Gray has for the job at all. He is Deputy
Chairman of a firm dealing with domestic heating technologies, has held
various ceremonial positions in the region (including being the Deputy
Lieutenant of Lancashire, and former High Sheriff of Lancashire) - but
his experience of higher education, and his understandings of it, appear
to be in rather short supply. The University needs people in positions of power, such as that of Pro-Chancellor, who understand that universities are not businesses but institutions of learning, teaching and research, that academic activities are not the same as boiler-making, and that being able to wear interesting outfits on ceremonial occasions (or whatever a High Sheriff of Lancashire does) does not really constitute adequate grounds for running a university. It may be that Gray understands this himself: towards the end of the Court meeting at which he was so roundly trounced, he made a comment that many on Court saw as a threat (or perhaps a promise) that he might resign if he did not get his way. We hope that Gray’s friends within the University can help him understand what a university is, so that he does not feel forced to carry out this threat, thereby depriving the University of his undoubted talents, and subtext of future copy. ***************************************************** 4. PERTINENT QUESTIONS: CONSULTANCY AND ITS COSTS The apparent view coming from on high that the University is primarily a ‘business’ raises many questions - not least concerning the common business practice of calling in consultants at every possible opportunity. The University has used consultancy firms on a number of occasions recently, such as in the recent exercise to assist in ‘branding’ the university - something that in the old days used only to occur to cattle, but now seems to be the fate of soap powders and universities as well. We are told the ‘branding’ consultants spoke to around 500 members of the University, although quite who was ‘selected’ for this honour of being spoken to, and to what extent the things they said have actually been recorded or taken account of in the subsequent strategy documents that have emerged related to Lancaster ‘brand image’ (or whatever it is supposed to be called), is unclear. Nor is it clear why outside consultants were needed at all: don’t
Lancaster staff know enough about their institution to be able to produce
such a report without paying outside ‘experts’? Or is it simply
that those who are paying the pipers, can call the tunes they will play,
and thereby gain legitimisation for strategies and plans that may already
have been decided upon? How much do such reports costs- and how much does the University spend on consulting fees each year? How are such fees reported in the University budget? And, would this money (which we guess to be considerable) be better spent
on other things? ***************************************************** 5. LANCASTER'S NEW MISSION: WEAPONEERING FOR LIFE? Recently the University established a link with QinetiQ - a commercial firm hived off from the Ministry of Defence some years back. Although the University announcement referred to QinetiQ as a ‘a leading defence security and technology company’ and mentioned possible areas of co-operation between the University and QinetiQ, the announcement also raised worries about precisely what the University is becoming involved with. A quick check on QinetiQ’s web site tells us that the firm is proudly involved in what it terms 'Weaponeering for life', has developed a ‘flexible and innovative’ approach to weapons development, and has been successful in making precision weapons. Moreover, it leads the way ‘in developing the electro-thermal chemical gun’. (<http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/weapons/advanced_weapons.html>). QinetiQ also manages Porton Down, the Ministry of Defence’s chemical and biological warfare centre (infamous for using soldiers, in the 1950s, as unknowing guinea pigs for a variety of germs and drugs such as LSD). Of course, we may be getting ourselves worked up about nothing here. QinetiQ could really be striving nobly, through its ‘weaponeering for life’ programme and its development of the ‘electro-thermal chemical gun’, for the betterment of the human condition and the promotion of human rights. Perhaps only a cynic would think otherwise- but to reassure ourselves, we ask the University managers who instituted this link-up to provide public assurances that Lancaster’s skills in areas such as computing and technology will not end up (directly or indirectly) in helping make faster, better weapons with which to kill people or blow up the homes of dissidents in foreign lands. Moreover, shouldn’t such link-ups be subjected to some public scrutiny before they are implemented or announced? Has this link-up been scrutinised by the University Ethics Committee? Has it been - or will it be - examined by the new University Working Party set up, in the aftermath of the GF6 case, to look at issues of commercialisation in the University? We welcome any further information that readers may have about this company, the nature of the arrangements it has with Lancaster, and the levels of ethical scrutiny given to this link prior to implementation. ***************************************************** 6. AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.... In each issue of subtext, we hope to have a competition, the results of which will be published in the next edition. There will be, sadly, no prizes for winning entries, save the honour and prestige (that may perhaps even be included on CVs, applications for promotion, and the RAE) of having one’s entry published here. We will endeavour to publish all (reasonably non-salacious or non-libellous) entries, and will select a winner- based solely on arbitrary editorial prejudice. This week we invite you to suggest - in the light of the George Fox Six case and the University’s obvious commitment to free speech and peaceful protest - the most appropriate person to reward with a Lancaster University honorary degree - someone you would love to see the Vice-Chancellor applauding as s/he came forth to receive this token of university esteem. It could be a captain of industry whose company has found better ways of killing people in poor countries, or the chairman of a construction company famed for delivering student residences on time. It might even be a dissenter of some sort- such as Walter Wolfgang, the 82 year old thrown out of the Labour Party Conference for shouting ‘nonsense’ at Jack Straw during his speech on Iraq. Nominations, please. We also invite other humorous suggestions, articles, and comments about the University. Indeed, we have to end this section with an item that would count as humorous if it were not, in the light of much that has been reported here, so absurd. This is the news that Lancaster University was short-listed for the Employer of the Year award run by the THES. If a University that prosecutes its own students, relies on consultants rather than its own staff to work out what it stands for, produces ham-fisted proposals to increase central control that are rejected by its Court, enrages large swathes of the professorial staff with a dreadfully thought-out and implemented merit award, and generally has managed to stir large sectors of its staff up in recent times, is seen as a potential Employer of the Year, one can only wonder how awfully run other institutions in the UK must be. Surely some mistake? (Ed: Sorry, no ...). ***************************************************** 7. LETTERS Normally we would hope to publish letters (provided they remain within the bounds of legality and good taste) here. Please feel free to send them in. We received one soon after announcing the plan to set up subtext.
I applaud your commitment to freedom and democracy, shown by your plans to erect such a fine organ of communication. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it rears its head, so I pledge my support to your cause. Once I have dealt with some minor technicalities in Iraq I will come to liberate Lancastershire, if I can find it on the map. Don and Dick tell me it is not far from Iraq. George W. Bush ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical
order) of: Lenny Baer, Steve Fleetwood, Patrick Hagopian, Gavin Hyman,
John Law, Maggie Mort, Rhona O'Brien, Ian Reader and Bronislaw Szerszynski. |