| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 45 27 November 2008 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight during term-time. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk. Please 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. subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. ***************************************************** CONTENTS: editorial; news in brief; senate report; lifelong learning; bullying and harassment; urban myth; lots of letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL There was a famous Punch cartoon from (we think) the 1920's, which showed a little girl turning to her mother in the street, indicating a rather prosperous and vain-looking man, and asking, 'Mummy, what is that man for?' Subscribers will be aware that those connected with the production of subtext - substantially, but by no means only, the editorial collective - spend no little time asking the same question of this publication. A common refrain has been that subtext is concerned with defining (and, having defined, protecting) the 'idea of the University'. More power to that elbow, we all say. There is also what might be called the Private Eye function, of investigating and exposing the follies of those who are in charge of what we do at Lancaster. This is undoubtedly something that our subscribers would like to see more of, and something that the subtext drones would enjoy having the time and resources to do. (Remember; the only difference between a subtext subscriber and a subtext worker is that the latter has even less free time.) We are as always utterly reliant on our subscribers to point us towards the things that we should be looking at. A third function we could aspire to is the Reithian motto, 'to inform, to educate and to entertain'. Well, we do our best. Finally, subtext is a forum for debate. Some feel that we should provoke, others might prefer that we should reflect. We do not seek to give definitive answers; even to aspire to that would perhaps be beyond our brief. What we can do, and perhaps this is our most useful function, is to attempt to contextualise issues and inform our readers about impending changes in the climate in which they live and work. Issues such as this and the forthcoming changes to statutes affect us all, directly or indirectly. subtext does not pretend to have the answers, but it will endeavour to ask the right questions. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Employment Prospects HEFCE has announced that Sir Alan Langlands, currently Principal & V-C at Dundee, has been appointed its new Chief Executive. ****** Q. What is the difference between a HoD in a University Department and
a Head of Division in the new School of Health and Medicine? ****** Sporting Behaviour. We understand that the plans for the new Sports Centre By The Pond are to go ahead. It'll be a splendid construction, no doubt, and will probably attract more custom from town, but some are wondering if it will still have the same relationship with those who live and work here, particularly those who used to be called 'Assistant Staff'. No longer will it be possible to nip out for an aerobics class or a quick squash game at lunchtime. It will add a ten-minute walk to each end of the session, without benefit of a covered way. Alternatively, as many staff will probably prefer not to get drenched and anyhow only have an hour for lunch, they will presumably drive down the hill and back, followed by the usual fifteen minute series of circuits of the perimeter looking for a parking space. We assume that these additional journeys have been included and allowed for in the University's assessment of its carbon footprint. Or, perish the thought, staff may take their business elsewhere, or just not bother. Are we missing something here? ****** The Shock of the New The Department of Politics and International Relations and the Department of English Literature and Creative Writing have been in their new accommodation in County College for nearly a term now. The move to County was not helped by a last minute two week delay which meant that secretaries were still unpacking their filing cabinets during Freshers Week, but Herculean efforts by staff meant that disruption was minimal. It would be nice to think that those in charge of building timetables took some notice of the schedules of those who will have to use the buildings they are providing. No doubt lessons have been learned. (As, no doubt, they were after the experience of Bowland North. Hang on ...) Those using the new building generally applaud the new offices, though there are, perhaps inevitably, still grumblings. Some feel that there is insufficient shelf space. There are no individual waste paper bins, ostensibly to encourage use of the large recycling bins at the ends of the corridor. Cynical colleagues suggest that the intention is to save money on cleaners; colleagues are happy to recycle, but would it not make sense and be more efficient for everyone to have a receptacle in which paper could be gathered and then recycled every few days, rather than doing individual sheets every fifteen minutes? And what about banana skins, used tissues, coffee cups and apple cores? Again, happy to empty our own bins if we've got them, but what do the providers of such things suggest we do? All office doors are now fire doors, so the mantra 'my door is always open' is now not only inaccurate but illegal. To make this less unfriendly - and, one assumes, to avoid any potential for harassment problems - glass panels are in every door. Which means that privacy is impossible and an upset student is now exposed to the gaze of any casual passer-by. Ain't life grand? There have of course been teething troubles. Noise has been an issue, and there have been problems with the drains. This culminated in a perfect storm on Tuesday of week 5, when staff were attempting to teach against fire alarm tests, the hum of the fans of the computers installed in every room which can't be turned off and which belch hot air into the room, vigorous mechanical hammering on one side of the building and frenzied mechanical digging on the other, all leavened with a strong odour of sewage. After vigorous complaints swift action was taken and things have got better since. Let's hope that the affected students who were muttering darkly at the time have forgotten all about it by the time they fill in their feedback forms. ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT The last Senate of the calendar year seems likely to have set a new speed record. Senators reached escape velocity after a mere 32 minutes of proceedings, with little discussion, and mostly broadcast items from the top table. As we all know RAE2008 hangs like a Sword of Damocles over the sector and it was no surprise that the RAE was the first item to be discussed. Trevor McMillan (Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research) - of whom more below - set out some important issues. The results will be reported under embargo on 17th December and the University is now planning how the dissemination of results may be conducted (although at least one Faculty already has its plans in place, suggesting Professor McMillan may be behind the curve on this one). Noting that the 'moment of reckoning was nigh', Professor McMillan reported that the figures for comparative proportions of staff returned to the RAE audit remain a problem. Figures collected by HESA after some dispute will apparently not be deployed. This is due to questions about their reliability, which open up the likelihood of five competing league tables in December bringing together RAE profiles (at university and unit of assessment levels) with various forms of statistic on the proportion of staff returned. Negotiations continue on how best to present Lancaster's (as yet unknown, although there have been hints) performance. The Vice-Chancellor followed the RAE report with some speculations about the manner in which the Treasury will interpret these results, and the likely impact on future funding in the sector (unlikely to be good news). The VC then indulged in what our friends in the Department of Politics and International Relations might recognise as a form of Kremlinology, as he sought to explain the Byzantine division of labour in the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills and its possible importance for the sector. The focus then switched to the proposed Indian link up with G.D. Goenka (a private educational company in India who are attempting to expand their operations into the HE sector by arranging a sort of franchising arrangement with this University), with the Deputy VC noting that due diligence has not as yet been completed (and in response to a Senator's question, the University Secretary confirmed that this process did have an ethical element). However, a memorandum of understanding is in the last stages of drafting and it is hoped that the agreement will be concluded by the end of November. Unlike a previous appearance at Senate, the Indian project passed relatively unremarked as the agenda moved on to the rolling schedule of business. In retrospect this Senate looked like the calm before the storm compared to the business for the February Senate, leading the VC to suggest provisions may be appropriate (and perhaps sleeping bags?), while one Senator made a plea for the early electronic circulation of some items to halt the manic and extended reading required before some Senate meetings (although not this one, that seemed to last less time than it took many Senators to read the papers). With no AOBs, and once again no Questions on Notice (Senators must surely be aware that we are approaching a use-it-or-lose it moment on this innovation), the confidential list of proposed Honorary Degrees was passed unanimously. This led to the only likely substantive item: the transfer of CETAD to the (in the agenda) (surely misnamed) 'Faculty of Health and Medicine' (or did we miss a memo and the Dean of SH&M has been successful in his conversion of a School into the Fourth Faculty?). In a pretty thin field, this item did allow us to recognise a Senator of the Month, however. Professor Gatrell (who in some previous Senate reports has appeared in a less than completely favourable light) demonstrated a deftness of touch that deserved applause. On a Senator's question about the future of the Centre for Lifelong Learning once CETAD has been removed, and the shrinking Department of Continuing Education (see subtexts, passim), Professor Gatrell without a pause deflected the question to the Deputy VC (and with one bound he was free). Professor McKinlay noted that the Centre's activities like those of DCE would be kept under review, but clearly he noted that the shift of CETAD would have some impact. This is surely an understatement - it is now becoming clear that the demise of DCE will render Lifelong Learning an empty box that is likely to be relatively easy to remove from the University's organisation; although lifelong learning will continue, its delivery will be subsumed within the University's other activities. This may, of course, be no bad thing, but it surely does little for the University's regional standing. Before Senators reached for their coats and looked to the door, there remained the renewal of Professor McMillan's appointment as PVC Research. Some readers may wonder why this was not subject to the new procedures voted through amidst some acrimony at the previous Senate. This suggestion is, of course, naïve. It has become clear that, while this process is immutable and the new procedures are utterly fair and justified for new appointments, with the flexibility that Lancaster is justly famed for, current post-holders may, it seems, have their terms of office renewed indefinitely without recourse to trial by externally advertised vacancy. One Senator was heard to mutter that 'Stalin would have been proud'. Nevertheless, as no-one has much bad to say about Professor McMillan it was always likely he would have his post renewed. He did, and that was that. For Senate watchers a quiet Senate, unlike the likely marathon of discussion that will be keeping us burning the lamp-oil (if there is still oil by then) well into the night in February. CODA: NOT SO LIFELONG LEARNING Always interesting to revisit what people said a while ago. When the School of Lifelong Learning was opened all of, oooh, three years ago, the University of Lancaster Vice-Chancellor Professor Paul Wellings said: 'Lancaster University plans to maintain clarity and leadership on widening participation. The new School of Lifelong Learning and Widening Participation should be seen as a portal for ideas and activities which will enable the University to reach out into the community and offer more flexible learning opportunities. The University has high expectations of where this venture will lead'. Of course, times and imperatives change, but, as politicians often remind us on such occasions, whereas you are a flip-flopper, a trimmer, a charlatan and an unprincipled intellectually-lightweight chancer blown by the wind of events, I on the other hand change my mind after due and judicious consideration of altering circumstances and always within a principled ideological paradigm. We are, as usual, sure that the University's altered perspective on matters is entirely strategic, and that things aren't just being made up as we go along. ***************************************************** BULLYING AND HARASSMENT Friday 7th November 2008 was 'National Ban Bullying at Work Day'. As part of the run-up to this day, the University and College Union (UCU) asked its members working in higher education across the UK about their experiences of being bullied and harassed at work. According to their results, one in 10 respondents reported that they were 'always' or 'often' bullied. Only half (51%) said they were fortunate enough to 'never' be bullied at work. These national results roughly match Lancaster's own Staff Survey results which in 2005 reported that about ten per cent of staff reported that they had been bullied. Given that the university employs about 2,500, this suggests that there could be somewhere between two and five hundred staff members who are being bullied at Lancaster at any one time. Furthermore, the 2008 Staff Survey suggested 19% of staff were unhappy about organisational ethics, expressing specific concern about 'diversity and bullying issues.' With this in mind, and in the knowledge that no one is immune from the possibility of bullying, we thought it would be useful to give an overview of the situation and to offer some ideas for those who feel under that pressure. This problem is of course universal between and within genders, and across age groups. It is also, of course, not just about staff. We have no equivalent figures for student bullying issues but suspect an even higher percentage of bullying and harassment within the student population. One NUS survey suggests that 63% of students report experiences of bullying at university. Even if this is a 50% over-estimate, that still means that around a third of our students - about 4,000 people - who may have experienced it. All employers are under a duty of care to protect their staff from bullying and harassment. The Staff Charter states that the university has 'a zero tolerance approach to discrimination, violence, bullying or any other form of prejudice or harassment.' Highly laudable, of course, but such statements do not by themselves inspire confidence that systems are in place to tackle a culture of bullying, harassment and discrimination which evidently exists within the institution. One might conclude that if between two and five hundred staff continue to be bullied or harassed at Lancaster then 'zero tolerance' as a policy is not working in practice. Hopefully the targeting of new resources to the revamped HR department will help make policy in this area more of a reality for staff on the ground. One central problem may be that a significant group of staff, the bullies and harassers who make their colleagues' work lives miserable, simply do not understood what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in the workplace. Certainly there is little staff training resource targeted to this area. (Can anyone report having been on a workshop or course specifically aimed at understanding and dealing with this issue? Is it, indeed, part of HoD induction?) It may be the case that many kinds of interactions and types of behaviour historically tolerated are not explicitly recognised as problematic. subtext has thus come up with a beginners' guide to 'recognising bullying behaviour' (borrowed and adapted from the Trades Union Congress): * competent staff being constantly criticised, having responsibilities
removed or being given trivial tasks These are typical bullying behaviours. They are, we would argue, unacceptable in any civilised situation; what makes them bullying is that they are - characteristically - repeated over a period of time. Worse, they are often openly tolerated by other colleagues. This peer acceptance can be a get-out clause for the bully. The legal position is now fairly clear. In October 2005 what constitutes harassment in the workplace was enshrined in law for the first time, in order to end confusion over what behaviour is acceptable in the workplace. Sexual or racial harassment can no longer be excused as `a joke` or a 'bit of fun' if it can be regarded as unwanted conduct- be it verbal, non-verbal or physical, if it violates a colleague's dignity, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment, it is illegal. The staff survey, and comments passed to subtext on this topic, suggest that many staff feel that there is too much secrecy and a general lack of visible acknowledgment in relation to bullying and harassment in the university. Instead of insisting that all is well, staff might have more confidence if the university was seen to act more boldly and publicly in tackling the culprits and also changing the unpleasant cultures in some units and departments. Our employers are obliged to protect us and provide us all with a safe and dignified workplace. Whilst the university is clearly attempting to make progress in this area - and let's be clear that it both should do this and cannot afford not to - more time, attention and resources should be earmarked to these issues. We welcome comments from readers on this, as with all topics. ***************************************************** URBAN MYTH AT LANCASTER Another in our occasional series; not so much a myth this one, but a real personal experience story told first hand to the editors. Back in the 90's there was a group of sporting male students who styled themselves 'The Cartmel Animals'. Their idea of fun was to cling-film every lavatory in the college; their most annoying habit, on returning noisy, inebriated and late from an evening out, to go to every womens' kitchen in the college, collect all the food they found in the fridges and eat it. When confronted with the evidence (empty packets etc) they simply denied it. However, God is Just. Subscribers may not be surprised to hear that these young men enjoyed a party above all things, that their favourite type of party was fancy dress, and that their favourite fancy dress was female costume. (We leave the issue of why some aggressively heterosexual young men are apparently so eager to dress in womens' clothing to keener minds.) The end of term saw the Fancy Dress Party to end all Fancy Dress Parties held in Manchester. The young men dressed themselves in their borrowed finery, piled into a mini-bus and set off. The bus dropped them off in Manchester and departed. Unfortunately, the bus had dropped them off at the wrong place. Within a few minutes the group of high-heeled, extravagantly-wigged and heavily made-up young men in cocktail frocks encountered a posse of booted, tattooed and ill-tempered individuals who took them for cross dressers, a group in society with whom, it transpired, they had active issues. The result was short, noisy and painful. All of the Cartmel Animals spent the night in Casualty, still in their now- dilapidated costumes, waiting to be patched up, while a steady stream of Mancunians poked their heads around the curtain and departed, sniggering. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear Editorial Collective A couple of comments on points raised in the past two issues. In issue 43, a member of one of the two departments recently moved into County Main was quoted as saying that being there was like being in Siberia. As Principal of The County College I have to say that this seems a far-fetched comparison. Admittedly County Main is in the north-east of the campus, but its climate is not noticeably different from that of more southerly colleges, and I have yet to sight reindeer there, or see signs of shamanic activity - though I am sure I speak for fellow members and officers of the College in saying that shamans would be entirely welcome, provided that they keep reasonably quiet during academic office hours. It is true that the space allocated for retail outlets in the plans for County Main's refurbishment has apparently been allocated for other purposes, so that the nearest café is in County South. The heads of the academic departments and the college officers are working on this, and in the meantime inhabitants of County Main should note that there are more sheltered routes to County South than across the sometimes wind- and rain-swept piazza (which, come to think of it, would be picturesque under snow). In your last issue you reported on the use of catering staff rather than students to work in college bars. This is a bad idea for several reasons. Here are three: 1. It would deprive students of an opportunity to be employed on the campus, although such employment is often regarded as a valuable way of enhancing the student experience, and the extensive use of student labour in North American universities is often cited as an example to be followed. 2. When college bars are staffed by students who are members of the college - and may be assistant deans or tutors - they become forums not only for sociability and gossip but for low-key pastoral care and the early identification of student problems. This is one of the features that differentiate college bars from purely commercial places of refreshment, and it would be destroyed if catering staff were to take over. 3. I would need to see evidence to be persuaded that catering staff are more efficient - and even that they are less expensive. Empirical observations made - albeit unsystematically - since 1976 do not suggest to me that catering staff are more efficient than student bar staff; and if they are really cheaper it can only be because they are paid at an astonishingly low rate. David Smith, Principal, The County College ****** Dear subtext, If Prof. Woodhead is convinced that at Lancaster things are often more complicated than good/bad I wonder why she did not use this opportunity to alert us the many complexities, rather than presenting the binary comparison, of Oxbridge elitism bad, New Labours neoliberal education policies good. I applaud subtext for offering an alternative to other university newsletters (partisan or not) - keep up the good work! Jo Grady, Furness College ******* RE: The cull of the rabbits! I can report seeing two Elmer Fudds, fully equipped with blunderbusses, marching up the cycle path to campus at the end of last year at about 9:30pm. I have since seen a man with dog and gun with jaw fixed in similar manner at a similar time of night during the summer. I hope the herd of deer who live in the woods round campus know to seek refuge in the old geography rooms! Bestest wishes, Rachel Davis, Friends Programme Call Officer, Alumni & Development ******* Dear subtext Thanks very much for alerting us to the extension of the time period for making comments about the proposed 'Performance and Development Review' (PDR) system (wonder why I didn't know it was still open, as a while ago I was told it was closing on September 25th?). I would very much wish to second your call for colleagues to debate these proposals further. It seems to me that, while there is certainly room for improvement in the existing appraisal system, and what is being proposed might help that to occur in certain respects, I cannot understand why the new model will be implemented on an annual basis. This seems to me to me far too frequent in terms of the amount of extra work it will involve, especially since the system itself will also be more formal, bureaucratic and complex than the current one, and such a time period will in any case often be too soon for measurable outcomes to have been achieved (or will encourage only short-term goals). I can see wanting to 'crack down' in cases where there are real problems, but my impression is that this is not likely to be necessary in the majority of instances. Might it therefore not be more effective if the option existed to have annual reviews in the case of serious under-achievement etc., but to otherwise make the norm every two or three years instead, as (I believe) is currently the case? In this way the system might better reflect what I think is the profile of staff as a whole. Best wishes, Alan Waters, Linguistics & English Language PS the following HR page might be an easier one to go to for details of the PDR itself and how to make your views known: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/hr/development/PPPConsult.html. ****** Dear subtext collective, Your idealistic assessment of the US election in subtext 44 jarred with my own reading of it somewhat. While I was delighted by the result of the Presidential election, we should not forget that many of the people who voted for Obama in Florida and California also voted at the same time to ban gay marriage in both states, aligning their states neatly with Republican Arizona which also voted to outlaw gay marriage on the 4th November. They were joined by the good folk of Arkansas who voted to outlaw the possibility of unmarried couples adopting - a further act in a campaign of bigotry in a state that has already seen gay marriage outlawed. The full set of electoral results from the 4th November, for me at least, do not suggest that US voters are 'hungry for high principles and idealism' in the rather uniform way in which you suggest. While there is some appetite for high principles and idealism in the US electorate, the voters seem to be rather picky eaters. The results of the 4th of November suggest that, for some voters at least, equality is a blessing that they are prepared to bestow on some but deny to others. While 'inclusion and change' are at the heart of Obama's agenda, those principles do not live in the hearts of all who voted for him. Such a situation does not, in my view, deserve the praise that subtext has rained upon the US electorate. Your heightened sense of criticism has, for once, failed you. Yours, Tony McEnery ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sarah Beresford, |George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |