|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext issue
6 13
March 2006 'Truth:
lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every
fortnight All
editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk Please
download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues
and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The
editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers.
subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. CONTENTS:
editorial, George Fox Six trial opening; post-George Fox Six committees;
HEFCE funding allocations for 2006-7; the no rumours column; pressures on
heads of department; spinal tap; Wallups' World; synergy!; letters; editing
subtext ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Having
acquired a motto (see subtext 3), subtext now has a Coat of Arms to go with
it. Our subtext 3 competition asked readers to devise a new University Coat
of Arms more in line with the modern university ethos than the old Lancaster
one. The competition was won by Mike Cowie (see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/archive/issue004.htm)
who was awarded a 'Q' from QinetiQ, the firm that, amongst other things,
adopts a 'flexible and innovative' approach to weapons development, and with
whom the University has a 'partnership' arrangement (see subtext 1). Mike's
verbal coat of arms so intrigued the people at the local online guide,
Virtual Lancaster, that their cartoonist Nick Miller designed a Coat of Arms
for us based on it. This, along with what it signifies, can be seen at http://www.virtual-lancaster.net/images/3rdparty/alternative_uni_logo_large.jpg.
As with the motto, we are happy to swap our Coat of Arms with that of the
University, if a suitable place for hand-over can be arranged through an intermediary.
And
now for a confession of failure. Our attempts at modernisation, venturing
forth into the 21st century and becoming Team Subtext, as announced in
subtext 5, have come to naught. Attempts to develop a bright Team Subtext
uniform for editors to wear on campus for easy identification failed
miserably, as various individuals insisted on clinging on to their old
clothes and identities. Emails between the editors indicated that everyone
was continuing to use outmoded terms such as 'the collective' rather than
'the team'. We sought a meeting with our line manager and team co-ordinator,
only to discover that they did not exist. Consequently, in failure and
sadness, we have abandoned the push forward into the blue skies of the 21st
century. We have dispensed with Team Subtext, and have regressed instead to
our old status of an editorial collective. The Team Subtext mascot has been
brutally massacred. As
subtext 6 goes into e-production, much is up in the air: a strike on campus
on March 7th followed by a boycott of assessment by the unions, while the
George Fox Six appeal is underway at Lancaster Crown Court. See below for an
account of the opening of the appeal, an event which has come to symbolise a
struggle over key values held by the university community. We also include an
update on the three committees set up in the wake of the initial outrage
following the George Fox 6 affair. subtext
6 also looks at the University's allocation of funding from HEFCE for 2006-7
and growing concerns about the increasing strains being put on Heads of
Department and Department Officers, plus some of our usual features. We
also announce a new venture: the first of an intermittent series called the
No Rumours Column. Rumours often fly around campus with no justification
whatsoever, and subtext, as befits an organ committed to probity and
openness, would never wish to fan such flames or contribute to a culture of
gossip and innuendo. Therefore, even when such rumours and gossip are passed
to us, we will not deign to give them credence by passing them on here.
Rather, in the No Rumours Column (see below), we will, when appropriate,
demonstrate our scepticism by asking simple straightforward questions that
will dispel any concerns that people may have about such obviously groundless
rumours.
GEORGE
FOX SIX RE-TRIAL OPENS The
long awaited hearing began this morning, having been switched at very short
notice to Preston Crown Court. Judge Stuart Baker, sitting with two magistrates,
heard the prosecution outline the charge of aggravated trespass under Section
68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. Keith
Richardson, Lancaster postgraduate; Matthew Wilson, St Martin's College
student ; Joanne Moodie, Lancaster postgraduate; Rhiannon Westphal, Lancaster
graduate; Rachel Jackson, Lancaster undergraduate and Anthony Ayre, Lancaster
undergraduate, are appealing against their conviction and sentence for
aggravated trespass at the George Fox Building on 10 September 2004. Neil
Addison, prosecuting, told the court that aggravated trespass involved
intimidating, obstructing or disrupting people carrying out 'lawful
activities'. The lawful activity in this case was a corporate venturing
conference, something he said which was 'somewhat new to academia'. This
particular conference was being addressed by Lord Sainsbury, the
Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Science and Innovation at the
Department of Trade and Industry, and Prof Paul Wellings the university's
Vice Chancellor. This was, he said, a private event for ticket holders only.
At the point where Lord Sainsbury was about to speak the defendants entered
the conference hall and unfurled banners and began speaking to the audience,
objecting to the conference and the presence of Lord Sainsbury and his
association with 'GM food'. The
conference could not proceed and when the defendants were ejected the
disruption continued in the building's foyer where whistles and a loud hailer
in siren mode were used until they were then ejected from the building by the
police. The demonstration then continued lawfully outside the building, he
said. The
university had the right to close off parts of the campus and restrict access
to students, who were 'not owners but have a licence to be there'. When that
licence is exceeded they become trespassers, he went on. The prosecution will
submit that at no time in advance did the defendants indicate their intention
to demonstrate. The
court then watched a video of the demonstration which had been made at the
time by one of the Six; this video was 'agreed evidence' the court was told,
because all the defendants admitted they had entered the George Fox lecture
hall. The video showed the conference being interrupted by protestors who
went onto the stage and addressed the audience. One delegate was heard to
shout, 'Why don't you sod off?' at the protestors, which was followed by a
joke and general laughter around the hall. Much shouting and whistling was
heard before the action moved to the foyer. The
first prosecution witness was Richard Crawley, Director of External Relations
and Corporate Communications at the university's Management School, who
described his role in the conference organisation as 'peripheral'. Commenting
on his feeling during the protest he said, 'ironically, at the time I thought
it was bad for the reputation of the university that the conference was being
disrupted.' Andrew
Fitzpatrick, defending, asked whether corporate venturing events and the role
of business within educational institutions was controversial and provoked
opposition. 'There are people in every university in the country who are
opposed', he agreed. But he added that this event was not especially
controversial; there were companies coming onto the campus every day. The
court heard that universities had a special obligation under the Education No
2 Act to ensure freedom of speech was facilitated. Asked if he was aware that
universities were obliged under the Act to set up a Code of Practice to
maintain freedom of speech, Professor Crawley replied, 'I am now, I wasn't at
the time'. The
witness agreed that no tables were knocked over, no-one was physically
jostled or pushed, the only physical act by the defendants was passive
resistance, no protestor struck out or kicked out and no one had since
complained of being assaulted. 'It was not that sort of protest', he said.
However, he went on, 'The nature of the protest was in a domain which had
been the subject of violet protest, so there was anxiety, but that dissipated'.
Asked about the tradition of student protest he said, 'If this was 20 or 30
years ago this would have been a common occurrence. We have got out of
practice.' The
trial continues. ***************************************************** POST-GEORGE
FOX SIX WORKING GROUPS In
the furore that accompanied the George Fox Six case last autumn, the
University set up three working groups as follows: *
The (existing) Research Ethics Committee, chaired by PVC (Research) Professor
Trevor McMillan, would (a) examine the university's guidelines on the
commercialisation of research and on work with companies and institutions in
civil society; and, (b) consider the broader management of ethical issues in
higher education and where within the institution they should be considered. * A
new working group, chaired by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Robert
McKinlay, would examine Senate and Council's current position on protests. * A
further new working group chaired by the University Secretary Fiona Aiken
would, in consultation, examine whether any changes are required to clarify
the code of Freedom of Speech and the rules of the University. Although
some cynics (surely, not subtext?) were concerned that the establishing of
new groups and committees might be a typical institutional response to
problems of the 'set up a committee and hope the issue runs out of steam
before it reports back' variety, subtext has heard some hints that the groups
are actually engaging with the issues at hand. Here we report what we have
heard about their progress, with a certain amount of talk, drafts, and
redrafts, to the stage where the definition of a camel as a horse designed by
committee springs to mind. (i)
The McMillan group on Research Ethics The
committee has developed a set of proposals, based on a number of key
principles, that will be made available for comment in due course. In the
proposals 'research' is broadly defined as 'all forms of research
investigation and experimentation, including consultancy, Third Mission and
blue skies research, that contribute to a body of knowledge or theory.' The
fundamental premise of the proposals is that it is the individual researcher
that is charged, in the first instance, with ensuring that the research
(including research partnerships) is conducted in accordance with the code of
conduct. This 'bottom-up' approach means that the judgement about the ethical
appropriateness of the research (or collaborative partners) is left to the
individual to decide—with the provision that potentially controversial work
has to be forwarded to the Research Ethics Committee. The institutional
guidance for such an ethical evaluation is the 'code of conduct.' The code of
conduct embodies very broad statements such as 'funding from any source that
is likely to be controversial shall be carefully considered.' It seems likely
that there might be a wide range of interpretations of the phrase 'likely to
be controversial.' Indeed the George Fox protests are an example of such competing
interpretations. So, too, might links with groups such as QinetiQ, which
subtext has reported on before (and to which one committee member has
research links via a research project, albeit one that is clearly not linked
to QinetiQ's arms-related activities). As it stands based on discussions of
this group thus far, problematic and contentious issues (e.g. QinetiQ and its
associations with the University) might remain as before, while it seems
highly likely that the George Fox incident would have happened even if these
proposals were in place. (ii)
The McKinlay group on protests This
group has had two meetings (a third is scheduled for March 9th as subtext 6
is being written). The inaugural meeting discussed the 1971 Senate/Council
ruling, which recognised the right of students and staff to engage in
peaceful demonstrations, but not to obstruct or impede the work of any group.
This was examined in the context of the current legislation and the rules of
the university, including where 'lines' denoting conduct should be drawn, and
what should happen if there were to be crossed. In the second meeting Tony
Evans (security officer) gave an overview of the security implications,
explaining what the security team should do in certain circumstances and what
they cannot/will not do. He confirmed the current security team's contingency
plan is the Security Department Plan Number 6 on Protestors. A draft document
has been drawn up that deals with issues of 'Approach', 'Guidelines' and
'Procedures' relating to protests, with the first two having been discussed
(although some committee members feel not in great detail) at the first two
meetings, and the last of these (probably the most important) being discussed
in the third meeting. (iii)
The Aiken group on freedom of speech This
group is awaiting the outcome of Professor McKinlay's report on protests
before embarking on its discussions. Comments
and concerns Clearly,
these groups are working on a highly problematic set of issues and their work
is still in progress. We do not know what they will finally recommend.
However, we have heard some voices of concern about issues relating to both
groups thus far. Naturally, while committees and working groups are still in
progress, it is difficult to assess the extent of their work, or where
problems might arise. However, subtext has heard of questions being raised in
some quarters about the emphasis placed on a 'bottom up' system reliant on
individualised interpretations about what might be 'controversial'. Yet
alternatives might be equally difficult without confronting far bigger
questions. It
seems obvious that it is not possible to have all proposals for research and
research collaboration reviewed by the ethics committee. Nor might it be
possible to compile an exhaustive list of ethically controversial topics or
partnerships—for which there might always be justifiable exceptions. Thus, it
seems clear that a 'top-down' system might create its own problems.
Nevertheless, there is concern that if the proposals are accepted in their
current form they might not help us steer through an increasingly complex
ethical environment. Some consider that it is exactly this question that
should come first. What are the values and principles that should underpin
the work of the university and guide the choices it makes? As
for the McKinlay group on protests, this clearly has more work to do, but
there is a concern that it may not address the fundamental issues raised by
the George Fox Six case threw up. Re-stating the 1971 Senate/Council ruling
and Security's contingency plan number 6 leaves us in exactly the same
position as before. The situation is more complex than in 1971: the idea of
respecting the right to protest without disrupting the 'normal working of
other groups' is much more problematic than it was in 1971, if for no other
reason than that there are now a lot more 'groups'. For example, private
companies have a range of relationships to the university, and a variety of
protest groups may object to specific activities carried out by said
companies. It may not be possible to square the circle here, without further
thought and movement beyond the 1971 guidelines, between companies whose
activities which have, under those guidelines, protection to carry out their
'normal working relationships', and groups that strongly object to that
working, and seek the right to protest against it. Moreover,
whilst security is clearly an important matter, we should be wary of attempts
to transpose a political problem, such as the nature of legitimate protest,
into a security problem. This is reminiscent of an earlier response from the
university which sought to transpose the political problem into one of
harassment and bullying. Such transpositions do not enable serious debate:
indeed they foreclose it. We will have to wait and see if the McKinlay
working group on protests will start to tackle such fundamental issues before
handing their findings over to the Aiken group, or whether it will just tweak
the draft report and leave us in a situation not far removed from the current
climate of confusion. ***************************************************** HEFCE
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR 2006-7 The
Higher Education Funding Council for England has recently announced its
funding allocations for each university in England for the year 2006-7
(ending July 31 2007). Lancaster receives as its total teaching grant (the
lump sum for teaching home undergraduates) £25.38 million (in real terms, a
decrease of 0.2% from the previous year); the sum reflects student numbers
and is weighted (according to the Times Higher Education Supplement)
depending on student, subject and institutional factors. For research funding
Lancaster gets £17.29 million, up 5.6% in real terms from the previous year.
Overall, our block total resource from HEFCE (this includes all Home and EU
undergraduate fees, HEFEC grant money- but not part-time OS and such
undergraduate fees) is £51.4 million. The
real terms increase is 1.9% overall - an increase that appears not to match
the rising costs of running the institution over the year. (Just to put that
picture in perspective, since salary costs make up a sizeable part of
university running costs, even if a minimal salary increase were agreed with
all unions across the campus of under 3%- that would be more than the overall
resource increase, although there is also the increase in income from tuition
fees to factor in as well). This
year, Lancaster does not appear to have received much of an increase in its
allocation - perhaps not enough even to keep up with inflation. Lancaster's
1.9% overall real-terms increase looks rather low when compared with HEFCE's
overall total resource increase, in real-terms, of 5.8% above the previous
year. Some institutions got less than our 1.9% (UCL in London, for example,
saw its total resource increase in real terms by 1.2%, Brunel by just 0.5%)
but the majority got more. Our nearest neighbours, UCLAN (total resource
increase 2.0%) and St Martins (2.6%) did marginally better, while York (up
4,5% overall), Leeds (2.2%), Sunderland (3.5%), Warwick (3.4%) and Bolton
(4.8%) all did rather better- though none as well as Teesside (10.9%) and the
OU (7.6%). subtext
is not especially clued in on matters of university finance to comment much
beyond outlining these figures. It is aware that HEFCE funding allocations
may be something of a snakes and ladders game (maybe we just have to slide
down a snake this year because of previous good allocations?) and is, indeed,
unsure whether there is any sustainable logical rationale behind such HEFCE
allocation processes. However, it would be helpful to hear whether readers
think that the 2006-7 allocation is good or bad news for the University, or
just what was expected- and whether there are any factors that might have led
to the seemingly low allocation for the coming year. ***************************************************** THE
NO RUMOURS COLUMN subtext,
of course, would never stoop to disseminating rumours and unfounded gossip so
we'll have to await actual news about whether the costs of the North Campus
Project (see subtext 2) remain as planned in the budget, or whether they have
begun to spiral out of control at what appears to be a tight time financially
for the University. PRESSURES
ON HEADS OF DEPARTMENT subtext
hears of anger and revolt among Heads of Department about increasing demands
made on them by various parts of the administration. Sparking the recent
anger was a request from the Careers Service for information on careers
destinations for past students - a form per student and a request that
involves an immense amount of work for individual Heads. This comes on top of
numerous other 'wanted asap' requests from University House and beyond, such
as responding to job evaluation questions within a very few days, replying to
a host of other surveys seeking data, and requesting materials and data sets
relating to the RAE. The same is true of Departmental Officers, who report
that the demands placed on them for information and data coming from all over
University House have been increasingly exponentially. The pattern, as a
former HoD we spoke to notes, goes like this: a request for some task to be
done within a very short period of time, usually couched with the phrase 'this
will only take a few minutes of your time', and often from a branch of
University House itself charged with managing data. Even if such tasks did
take 'only a few minutes' (itself untrue - very few demands are so simple),
when combined they add up to significant amounts of time for people already
suffering massive workloads. What
infuriates HoDs is that such demands – invariably with unrealistic deadlines
– come from all parts of the administration without there being any hint of
planning involved. Thus, if a demand is made for a huge set of RAE-related
data to be provided with a very short deadline, another demand (e.g. for
destinations data, with a similar deadline) invariably comes along at the
same time - evidence of a lack of joined-up thinking in University House. If
systems are actually being managed at the University, why are Heads of
Department being subjected to constant and unreasonable demands in this way?
Are we seeing managerial style which uses the notion of 'devolving' work as a
way of passing the buck? It
is worth reflecting that, a couple of years back, there was talk among senior
management and in University strategic plans, of 'organisational excellence'
– a term that apparently meant devising an efficient management system so
that people aren't constantly faced with increasingly fatuous demands on
their time – that would 'lift the burden' from Heads of Department. The move
to three faculties and its so-called 'devolution' of powers, was supposed to
help in this process and take time-draining administrative duties away from
departments, their heads and officers. It has not. ***************************************************** SPINAL
TAP ('Important
Notice: Communications on the University's north and south spines may be
monitored and reported to ensure the effective operation of democratic
systems and for satirical purposes' [apologies to 'Message of The Day']. In
an occasional column, we report on overheard conversations on the
university's beloved byways.) (Fellow
1) Have you seen this week's Times Higher? Apparently our VC has not only had
a pay rise of 11% over the last year but over the past three years it has
risen by 31.3%. That's well over the average for VCs of 25% and I thought we
were broke! (Fellow
1) I think you're right! How could I have been so wrong? A 4.5% pay rise for
every 1% increase in 'staff satisfaction with senior management' seems wholly
fair. I look forward to him receiving a further 297% increase when he finally
achieves, as I am sure he will, a 100% staff satisfaction rate with senior
management. ***************************************************** WALLUPS
WORLD From:
Professor Nigel Wallups, Lune Valley University of Enterprise LUVE-U Roger,
Thanks
for your latest consultancy report on Lune Valley, or LUVE-U as we are now
rebranding it. It hit the mark and is enabling us to lead the way forward
with a new strategy that will effectively define who we are as a brand that
appeals to modern business and customers. Of course, the report was greeted
in some quarters with screams of protest: no prizes for guessing where from!
Moaning academics and whingeing unions: I could run this whole show far
better without them, if you ask me! Of
course the academics made the usual howls of protest when we unveiled our new
acronym at a recent meeting. Something about LUVE-U being 'tacky' and setting
a bad example, through its spelling, to our 'students' (as some of the older
staff around here still insist on calling them). Aren't they always
complaining about how the 'students' can't spell anyway? So why moan about 'LUVE-U'?
Don't they see it shows we are in tune with the needs of our 21st century
customers!? As
for product placement advertisements on clothing and glasses ... you'd expect
they'd all be moaning about the imposition of a uniform but no- it's all
about discrimination and equality. You offer incentives - the more you
advertise, the more bonuses you get! - and all they do is talk about
equality. We've got unions asking whether willingness to use torsos for the
promotion of LUVE-U contributes to our current new schemes for performance
assessments and re-grading of staff. And if so, is torso size linked to the
size of bonuses and other incentives awarded? Of course it is! We think this
would positively raise staff morale as people gain comfort from high volume consumption
of relevant foodstuffs, while increasing their advertising space
contributions and get financial rewards as well. (And, of course, would help
with Phase 3 of the Plan, when we negotiate the next lot of high calorie food
outlet franchises across campus ...). And
I just found that thin people can be a danger - during the meeting with the
above academics, some fellow from the English Department asked me if I agreed
with Caesar on this issue. I thought he was trying to be funny but no,
someone in the office tells me that there is a famous play where this fellow
Caesar goes on about wishing another chap was fatter: apparently the chap is
thin and reads a lot and Caesar thinks he's a danger. And then the thin chap
helps kill him - which makes the point in a way. It made me wonder about some
of our staff: fattening them up won't just increase advertising space but
make life safer for us all! But
now we've got the unions complaining that the new incentives regime will
discriminate against the thinner members of staff (I think we are going to
have to call them 'staff of lesser bulk' or SOLB for short) who have less
square feet of torso space to contribute. We've pointed out that many of the
SOLBs on campus seem to be short-sighted, and hence are more likely to have
advertising space on their glasses than bulkier staff, but even then they
complain. The Head of Personnel was apparently confronted by a furious and
very thin chap who'd just changed to contact lenses, and felt doubly
disadvantaged. Still,
we want to go full-steam ahead with the plans: just need to think of ways to
head off the moaners first. We could ask the union to send people along to a
focus group, but knowing them they'd deliberately send along a bunch of
skinny people with good eyesight ... So, how about another report from AP,
advising on how to handle the resistance? Usual terms, of course- and no, as
promised before, you won't have to meet any moaning academics this time. Wish
we could get by without them! I think we're getting there ... Ciao NW ***************************************************** SYNERGY! In
subtext 5 we announced a competition or, rather, called for you to send in
examples of the most vacuous examples of management speak that you come
across, so that we could (advised by our consultants) create a new game
called Synergy! Entries have begun to come in, and the work of sorting them
out is under way. Our consultants are considering establishing a focus group
to pilot them before unleashing them on the general public, and while they
are doing so, there is still time before subtext 7, to add your contribution.
Thus
far we've had plenty of the more routine terms (customers, mission
statements, ways forward, anything to do with brands and (re)branding) and
where, appropriate have been translating them into English: from missions and
rebranding ('call in the consultants') to 'robust' (a word that has to be
used whenever talking about structures and systems and which seems to mean
that it looks good on the surface, but there are ways around it) and
'transparency (see above, 'robust'). 'Impact' seems to be another term that
is taking on a life of its own. There
are a few, though, that have been harder to fathom. One postgraduate sent in
a comment by a 'line manager' who, facing student complaints about course
provision, stated 'I have no disinterest in students'. Perhaps this view
might not be as bad as all that, given the levels of postgraduate student
complaints about treatment and provision (see the Letters in subtexts 3 and
4). One
correspondent, George Green, suggested that Synergy! should be more like
Scrabble, with different words and phrases awarded different scores according
to their degree of hideousness, inappropriateness, violence done to the
language, potential for misunderstanding, confusion, vapidity, etc. He also
drew our attention to the comments issued by the financial institution
funding the (lack of) construction of Wembley stadium: 'We're
below management guidance in terms of what we expect in our numbers ... Basically
we have factored in further downside.' In a
Scrabble-style Synergy! that would, indeed, be a triple score, combining
incomprehensibility with a wonderful degree of understatement: we think it
means something like: 'They set us a target and we've missed it. We think
we'll miss the next one too.' This rivals the Japanese Emperor's famous
statement to the nation after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as he announced that
Japan was surrendering, with words of archaic Imperial Japanese that
translated as 'The war has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage' -
a term that could be amended and adopted by management when discussing red
ink and league tables, etc (e.g. 'the financial situation has developed not
necessarily to Lancaster's advantage'). Anyway,
keep the suggestions, phrases and examples coming in - we hope to pilot
Synergy! before long ...
LETTER(S)
I
came across subtext today and want to say how good I think it is. All
universities need this sort of publication in today's climate of corporate
uniformity. Well done and I hope you keep going. C.R.
Owen, University of Birmingham ***************************************************** EDITING
SUBTEXT We
are now drawing towards the end of subtext's first 'term' in existence. It
has been our aim to create a space for debate and dissent and to reflect a
range of opinion from within Lancaster University and its wider
'environment'. To keep this process going we rely on the support of our
readers for articles, letters, information and other contributions. To this
end we invite readers, as ever, to write in to us and, especially, to
consider joining the editorial collective - if you are interested let us know
at subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk or contact any of us in person. ***************************************************** 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. |
