| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 8 15 May 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, news in brief, no rumours, history of protest at Lancaster: the Craig affair, targets, tables and distortions, spinal tap, letters ***************************************************** 1. EDITORIAL What is subtext for? There is no single answer because, from its inception, subtext was intended to serve several purposes simultaneously. Our home page specifies some of these, although it should be pointed out that this is not necessarily an exhaustive list. But one of its stated aims is 'to enhance a sense of community and collegiality among members of the University'. A noble aim, some may say; an overly ambitious one may say others. What is hardly in doubt is that such collegiality is and has been in decline and is in need of all the enhancement it can get. As Stanley Henig intimated in the last issue, the early University was one where staff knew each other (admittedly, much easier in an institution significantly smaller than our own); today, far fewer do. Does this matter? It very much depends on one's conception of a University. If a university is little more than an 'employer' and academics no more than 'employees' doing a job of work, then perhaps there is little to complain about. We would all just get on with our own jobs, although perhaps we may from time to time make links with those working in cognate fields if this would enhance the prospect of that ultimate prize, research funding. But some of us are quaint enough to believe that this is a deeply impoverished view of a university. As our charter makes clear, our university was constituted as 'one Body Politic and Corporate' (it is unfortunate that this last ancient and laudable term has, in recent years, been hijacked by the business world), with all its members - junior and senior - belonging to one academic 'family'. On this view, the University is a community of scholars, with as much emphasis on the community as on the scholarship. Our charter enjoins us to advance 'knowledge, wisdom and understanding' not only through our teaching and research, vital though those are, but also through 'the example and influence of [our] corporate life'. This conception was symbolised by our being granted a coat of arms, which is why its subtle displacement by a logo in recent years is a deeply political gesture. There are still many of us who believe that such an ideal is worth preserving, and for those who do, we have a duty - as our charter exhorts us - to attend not only to our teaching and research, but also to ensuring that the 'example of our corporate life' is one that is worth emulating. Of course, we have to accept the realities of our situation and, specifically, that the leisurely life of our academic forebears is one in which we can no longer indulge. But we can perhaps make small efforts and gestures - by taking proper lunch breaks, by staying on at the end of the day for an extra hour occasionally - to meet colleagues outside of our own immediate departments and thereby to make the ideal of a university community into something approaching reality. At Lancaster, we are fortunate in having numerous facilities for this - in college social events, in the various restaurants and coffee bars, in the Lonsdale Senior Common Room (open to all senior members but sadly underused) and, of course, the college bars. subtext would be pleased to think that it plays some small part in enhancing 'a sense of community and collegiality among members of the University'. But in this task, for those who think it worth pursuing, we all have a part to play. ***************************************************** 2. NEWS IN BRIEF Following on from our news item in the last issue, we now have received word that two colleges - Furness and Grizedale - are, subject to ratification by their respective Syndicates, about to appoint their Principals. The successful candidate at Furness is Reuben Edwards. A lecturer in the department of Communications Systems, Dr Edwards is a long-standing Furnessian. As well as being a former junior and postgraduate member of the college, he was also subsequently its Dean. In more recent years, he has served as Alan Wood's successor as University Dean. Furness is no doubt pleased at the prospect of welcoming back its prodigal son. Indeed, such a biblical allusion is not entirely out of place in this context, for the new Principal of Grizedale College is the University's Roman Catholic Chaplain, Father Hugh Pollock. Although in his current incarnation, he is relatively new to our community, he is no stranger to the University and its college system, having studied History here as an undergraduate, when he was a junior member of Lonsdale College (1974-77). Both colleges are fortunate to have found Principals of such high calibre, and subtext wishes them well. Over at Fylde, meanwhile, the search continues. The Fylde JCR President has been heard to opine that his college is feeling unloved. Not for much longer, surely. ****** The AUT action short of a strike continues. Some have apparently been confused by the communications received from the Personnel office, which stated that 'the University and campus trade unions have recently concluded the major elements of a project to modernise pay, grading and contractual terms'. This, of course, referred to the implementation of the framework agreement, under negotiation for the past two years, and has no direct connection with the current continuing dispute. Although there has been some progress in national negotiations, it does not appear that an end to the action is imminent. According to AUT, what progress has been made has largely been due to the resolute action of union members. At Lancaster, the picture emerging from departments is somewhat mixed, although it seems that in most departments there is a solid body of support for the action and a determination to see it through to a satisfactory conclusion. Let us hope that student support for the action will remain firm. It has done so until now, but students' resolve will no doubt be tested in the coming weeks. For further comment, see the letters column below. ****** We're all highly delighted, of course, to see Lancaster bounding up The Guardian's league table. Management will probably make a big fuss, and it's hard to see what alternative it has, given the battering it took last year in exactly the same tables. Last year we all quite rightly asked why things had got so bad. This year we might equally well ask how things suddenly got so good. The fact is, of course, that we're doing pretty much as we were two years ago. The Guardian would no doubt describe its methodology and criteria as being extremely sensitive. Those on the receiving end might be justified in thinking that the way the league tables are put together allows a relatively small change in a 'weighted' area to unbalance the whole thing and send an otherwise decent institution plummeting down the table. Whatever the University does this year, it would do well to avoid hubris; those who live by the league table will die by it, and we don't make the rules. ****** subtext was itself the feature of a full page article in last week's issue of the THES (5 May 2006, p. 21). The article describes the general background to and the motives behind the foundation of subtext, based on interviews with several members of the editorial collective. It discusses some of the key features of subtext, as well as some of the major discussion points raised in the first issues. It also features a panel of selected 'subtext snippets'. ***************************************************** 3. 'NO RUMOURS' COLUMN Following on from the report of the conspicuous absence of any arrangements being made for the appointment of a new Academic Registrar, it has been brought to the attention of subtext that back in 1994, the then V-C and his immediate deputies thought that the University could manage perfectly well without a University Secretary. Both Council and Senate disagreed and fought for many months to preserve the post and appoint a new holder, the result being that a Secretary was indeed appointed. The reminder is salutary. There is clearly the need for some thought and discussion here. Is the post of Academic Registrar worth preserving? If so, will Council and Senate (particularly the latter, it being responsible for the specifically academic affairs of the University) make a stand and fight the cause? It is always possible and one can always hope, but subtext is not holding its breath. ****** As was reported in the news item above, Reuben Edwards is about to be appointed Principal of Furness College, which will thus create a vacancy for his current office of University Dean. As with College Principalships, candidates for the University Deanery are difficult to find. This may be exacerbated, however, by the fact that the current review of University discipline being undertaken by Law professor Peter Rowe seems to entail more, not less work for the University Dean. Under proposals currently under discussion, all college disciplinary appeals will be referred to the University Dean (rather than College Principals, as at present). Furthermore, it is thought that the Dean's workload relating to car parking appeals will increase significantly as a result of the tightened regulations regarding student car parking on campus. This is surely a time to give serious thought to increasing the 'buy out' that the holder of this office receives from his/her departmental duties. As so often with posts of this sort, they are badly in need of greater institutional recognition. ***************************************************** 4. HISTORY OF PROTEST AT LANCASTER: THE CRAIG AFFAIR (I) Students of Dissent at Lancaster will probably be aware of The David
Craig Affair in the early 70's. This will be described in a future issue
of subtext. However, to set those events in context, they were not the
first time that Dr Craig (now retired and living north of Lancaster) found
himself at the centre of national attention. These confidential discussions were then leaked to the press and Dr and Mrs Craig were interviewed by reporters and repeated their view that extra-marital sex (as distinct from promiscuous sex) should not be an issue for the University to concern itself with. On 11 May 1968 the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express both reported in a headline that 'College Turns Down Free Love'. The reports managed to imply, without actually ever saying so, that Dr Craig was suggesting that male and female students should share rooms in a sort of dormitory arrangement as a matter of policy. There were outraged letters to the papers, stern editorials and much discussion. An interesting insight into the times is provided by the letters on the subject that were sent to the University, usually to John Creed (he of the building on South Campus) who was College Principal at the time. Not all of them have been preserved, but the ones which have been make instructive reading. For example, one concerned individual wrote that 'the social unrest, broken marriages, over-populated prisons, borstals and approved schools, the increase in drug-taking and VD is chiefly the responsibility of intellectuals like Dr Craig ...' A straightforward enough position, if perhaps a little broad-brush. Several of the letters use underlining promiscuously, and one manages to underline 26 words in a page of fewer than a hundred. The underlined words are mostly about morality and standards, but occasionally apparently random words get picked out too. At one point the second half of 'fornication' is heavily underlined and the first part not at all, suggesting a Calvinist preacher coming to the end of his sermon. At least two writers wrote several times, re-emphasising their concern. Several writers refer to the fact that their taxes (still in the days of full grants) are paying for what a London correspondent calls 'unlicensed brothels'. Two of them also refer to 'practices that brought down Greece and Rome', though the exact practices are unspecified (suggestions on a postcard ...). A repeated feature is the fairly straightforward letter of condemnation, followed by a signature and then an energetic PS – often longer than the letter - as if the writer were suddenly struck by the full force of the problem. One writer, clearly no fan of male students, was concerned about the situation of 'any sober, clean-minded young man to know that his 'wife-to-be' has been seduced by most of the disgusting and sex-ridden students at the College'. A hellish thought indeed. Finally, there is a copy of a magazine called Carolynne, graced with a picture of an attractive young woman on the front, but otherwise probably as close to subtext as existed back then. A member of staff (who shall remain nameless as s/he is still connected with the University) is quoted rather sweetly as saying; 'Some people may think me queer or something, but it does seem to me that girls these days do have to face undue stress'. Dr Craig was suspended following a Senate meeting on 15 May, which rejected Cartmel's 'mixed corridor' policy. On 21 May he offered his resignation as Dean to Syndicate, which rejected it. On 28 May the then Vice-Chancellor, Charles Carter, attended Cartmel Syndicate and 'recommended that Syndicate should accept Dr Craig's resignation, making it very clear that this acceptance carried no stigma'. Syndicate accepted the resignation, and the JCR Executive passed a motion of appreciation for Dr Craig's work for the college. As so often, when the institution's reputation and the individual's opinion come into conflict, the greater - if not necessarily the greater good - prevails. (Note 1: Due to time pressures Dr Craig has not been consulted on the above, but he has been invited to comment upon it in a future issue of subtext. Note 2: The curious may wish to read the extended account of these events (but not the letters) in Marion McClintock's book 'Quest for Innovation' (1974, pp. 373-76), which was of great assistance in compiling the above.) ***************************************************** 5. TARGETS, TABLES AND DISTORTIONS One of the most pervasive features of contemporary academic (and national) life is an obsession with the setting and pursuit of targets. Targets are often presented as means of improving systems and providing for that great aspiration of British public life, namely 'value for money'. Indeed, subtext hears of suggestions that targets – for example, on departmental income, grants, postgraduate student numbers, postgraduate completion rates, and probably anything else that be measured (Ed.: department torso sizes?) - are going to become an increasing part of the management style at this University. But to what extent do targets really achieve their professed goal? Further, to what extent are they counter-productive? The following true story should give us pause for thought. Recently, a member of the subtext collective was asked to be the external examiner for a PhD thesis being submitted at a reputable university. The department in question was not meeting its ESRC/AHRC imposed targets for completion rates: its postgraduate students normally spent an extended period of time on fieldwork (as well as needing to master various languages to conduct said fieldwork) and hence took longer than the 4 years now deemed the limit for PhD submissions. Consequently, it risked losing further funding and possible scholarships. In order to address this problem, a particular strategy was being proposed: the potential examiner was asked if it would be alright to submit a rather short, rough and ready thesis that could not possibly pass, on the understanding that the examining committee would refer the thesis, giving the candidate 12 months to resubmit. The examiner concurred, the thesis was handed in, the candidate got the 12 months s/he needed in order to complete the thesis. The examiner in question undertook to make another longish journey to re-examine the thesis 12 months hence. Such a time-wasting charade is not unusual. We hear stories of similarly deceitful games and stratagems that are being played out time and again in British universities in the present day. It made us think of how targets have become such an overarching aspect of modern life in every area - from schools to railways to universities and the NHS. They are designed, we are often informed, to encourage better performance and more competition and to produce information (usually translated in the League Tables: see subtext 5) that can be used by 'consumers' to make choices about what services they want in future. Yet, as the above incident implies, targets themselves do not so much guarantee results and improvements, but rather impose a new form of tyranny. The University has itself succumbed to the dictates of this target culture.
PhD dissertation maximum word lengths have been reduced to 80,000 words
– not because shorter dissertations produce better quality work
(there was no comment in the proposal about quality) but simply in order
to facilitate quicker submissions. Another proposal was to increase the
percentage of 2:1s and firsts awarded (at the time, 63% of undergraduate
degrees awarded by Lancaster were in this category). Again, the proposal
and discussions revolved around ways of amending assessment structures
and weightings, in ways that would produce apparently better end results
(while the quality of the actual work submitted remained constant). The
driving motive here was to match the record of 'competitor/comparator'
institutions, many of which awarded 70% or more of their degrees at 2:1
and above. ***************************************************** 6. SPINAL TAP Two academics walking together, one a fair bit older than the other. The younger one speaks first. 'I've been teaching thirty students in a broom cupboard all year. I hope I can get a decent-sized room next year, but talking to the room bookings people you get the feeling that the pressure on space is incredible.' The older one looks at him encouragingly. 'Well,' he says, 'I hear there's a lot of investment going into making a big more new space in University House. That should ease the situation a little.' The younger one looks puzzled, then his brow clears. 'Um, you mean the atrium? I'm sure it's make an interesting teaching space, but I don't think ...' It's a thought though, isn't it? Given the pressure on Departments to utilise every square inch of teaching room to 100% capacity, it seems inconceivable that the University would spend a lot of money on a vanity space which can't be used for anything. Please send suggestions to subtext for entrepreneurial ways in which a big space in University House could be utilised, and we'll award a small prize for the best idea. We've already had suggested the UK kite-flying championships, and the hog-calling finals, whatever they are. It's got something to do with the echo, apparently. ***************************************************** 7. LETTERS Dear subtext, Recently there has been a lot of discussion in SCAN, subtext, within the University, and across the national media about the current AUT industrial action and, specifically, the assessment boycott currently under operation. What has been missing in this debate, however, is evidence that people are looking at the key questions raised by the current dispute. These can be said to be threefold – i) the role of employers in the dispute; ii) democracy and collective action within the university; and iii), which was introduced by a comment in the last SCAN, the rights of labour. Currently many of those involved in the reporting of the dispute are portraying it in a very tendentious light. I doubt this is deliberate, but it is the case. For example, in the last SCAN (http://scan.lusu.co.uk/index.php?a=966), a report informed us that 'academic unions struck the offer down'. Contrast this harsh sounding report of the unions' activities with the softer manner in which the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) 'attempted to bring the AUT and NAFTE back to the negotiating table to stave off ... disruption'. Could the report not have read, 'employers demanded the unions accept a desultory pay deal, whilst the unions begged employers to begin negotiations to avoid further disruption'? The current discourse presented suggests that the university employers are totally passive in this process when they have not been. In reality university employers have undertaken a number of dirty tricks to divide various parts of the university's scholarly community. Before the strike even began, UCEA issued a statement comparing academics' pay to that of academic-related and assistant staff. Highlighting the pay of academics was clearly designed to divide workers against each other, whilst disguising the fact that it is the skill and labour of academics which keeps the universities open in the first place. Last week our very own Vice-Chancellor called on heads of departments to begin organising black-leg labour to mark work that is currently being boycotted by AUT members. In some departments this has gone ahead. Several students' unions around the country have succumbed to pressure from university Vice-Chancellors and come out against the assessment boycott. Employers are far from passive in all this and the press – especially the student press – should reflect this. To the question of democracy and collective action in the university. All this talk about students not getting degrees and their future jobs being given to others is a complete red herring. First, we are nowhere near such a situation. Second, if the strike really did go on well into June and July there would be some delay in publishing degree results, but the job would get done – as a very sensible letter from the head of the History Department to students pointed out last week. That somehow everyone will be left unemployed and unrewarded for their work is absolute nonsense. Universities are publishing their 'contingency' plans now to drive a wedge between academic staff and students by scaremongering – and if the comments from the students interviewed in the last SCAN are anything to go by, the employers seem to be winning. Academics and students in this university have a very important common bond – it is their presence here that keeps it open. Moreover, both form the vast majority of the membership of the university. It is time scholars within the university, both staff and students, put a united front to the management – something that will force them into action. Finally, it is very disturbing to see it implied by one of the people interviewed by SCAN that workers should not be able to strike. Anyone with a feeling for the British labour movement (the diggers, Tolpuddle Martyrs, those who fought for the legalisation of unions) would know that the freedom to strike is a fundamental foundation of any democracy. If workers cannot withdraw their labour then they are subject to the whims of capitalists who will, unfettered, force down wages. Oddly enough, it was not proposed that capital should be fettered too. If labour cannot strike, why should capital be allowed to move out of the country and seek cheaper resources elsewhere? I am sure that the right wing in the university sees some kind of corporatist system as being the antidote to this, but the failings of the twentieth century are sufficient to indict such a system. Fraternally yours, Chris Grocott ****** Dear subtext, I applaud your efforts to promote freedom of speech. Curtailment of that freedom appears to be at best an inhibition to the development of academic ideas. Lancaster is not alone in facing the challenges to academic freedom and equitable governance of universities that exist in our time, but the bold step taken by the editors of subtext provides encouragement to us all. I was, however, a little dismayed at the treatment that QinetiQ received in subtext. As the outcome of successive governments' actions to place defense procurement on a competitive basis it had little choice in its own creation. Once created it has put considerable efforts into the pursuit of non-defense activity and the application of some of its inevitably defense related research to the benefit of peaceful life. One might point to its contributions in medical imaging or to safety in air transport. The company's links with universities play a significant role here, not least because the collaborating academics often have a strong preference to work on civil projects. It seems to me that an individual link of this kind should be assessed on the nature of the link, rather than the superficial credentials of the parties involved. I thus appreciate the outrage felt over the lack of information, but find the response somewhat unsatisfactory. That detail apart, three cheers to the editors of subtext. All the best, John Huber, ****** Dear subtext, I fully support the decision to make peaceful protest to draw attention to the commercialisation and more worryingly the militarisation of universities. To add to the discussion you may wish to take a look at the report Soldiers in the Laboratory which I wrote for Scientists for Global Responsibility available at www.sgr.org.uk. All the best Chris Langley ****** Dear subtext, In addition to the papers suggested by Nayanika Mookherjee there is also a special issue of the journal Parallax on audit cultures within HE - see Vol 10, No 2 April/June 2004 available through the library's online data base. Elaine Swan, ****** Dear subtext, Following up on Stanley Henig's article in the last issue, readers may be interested in the rare video footage and photographs from the university archives. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/history/universityhistory/videos.htm is wonderful. Oh, this is what LUSS, the caving club, looked like (http://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/luss/Slugs/images/Elaine/index.htm), on campus and at Clapdale in the 70s. Cheers, Ian Edmondson, ************************************************************ The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical
order) of: Lenny Baer, Steve Fleetwood, George Green, Patrick Hagopian,
Gavin Hyman, John Law, Maggie Mort, Rhona O'Brien, Ian Reader and Bronislaw
Szerszynski. |