| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 46 11 December 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; attendance monitoring; frozen piazza; IP and drawbridges; public arts; council report; graduology; letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Well, here we are again - can it really be a year since the last round
robin letter we sent to you all, bringing you all up to date on 'the subtext
family'? Sorry, I should explain - we always sing that phrase to the theme
tune of The Adams Family - especially since the neighbourhood kids made
up their own version about our lot: And they're right about the fortnightly: over the last year the subtext brood has grown even further - by another 15! Some people might say that's too many, and certainly we always say 'never again' after each one, but we just can't seem to stop ourselves popping them out. People also say some of the kids are a bit bold - but we say, how can they be? There's no formatting in this house! Talking of which, remember our neighbours, LU Text? Well, we now call them 'LU Rich Text', because they've gone very up-market, all colour formatting and fancy graphics. It's all a bit much, to be honest, a bit 'flashing Santa on the lawn'. And we're not at all jealous. No, things are going fine for us, honestly: we still manage to take three holidays per year - even if they are all under canvas, in black and white, and in 10 pt Courier New (hint, hint). We were just talking the other day about how different the little subtexts all are - our friends joke that you would think they all had different parents! As if! We're as united as ever! But the new clutch have certainly had their little foibles. subtext 37 got obsessed with Dis-Continuing Education, getting involved with the campaign to save the village school. subtext 38 had a real thing about space (a budding astronaut, perhaps?). And little subtext 40 had a fascination for gerundives; despite our worries, he seems quite popular at school (though he keeps coming home with his glasses bent). Oh, and did you hear about subtext 36? The one who blabbed to the Times Higher about contact hours, causing us a bit of embarrassment? Well, she's doing work experience there now. Which is nice. Oh yes, and we've got a bit of exciting news - offspring number 50 will be due in March - looks like she or he is going to be a big one - we could be talking Caesarean! We'll let you know when the happy day arrives. While I remember, which of you was it that sent our last family round robin to Simon Hoggart to use in his column in the Guardian? We don't think he's funny anymore, actually. Anyway - Merry Christmas, and may none of your presents come in monoline wraps! X X X X ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Syllabus Plus and Minus The new centralised online room booking system continues to cause grumbling. The word is that the University of Cumbria - who have a similar system, which is, by all accounts, descending into complete chaos - have taken to fining Departments who book a room and then don't use it. Welcome to your future. ****** The Global Networker V-C-watchers may have discerned his absence from campus last week. The reason, it seems, was a visit to Australia. Not job interviews this time, we understand; instead, he was attending a gathering of the Wellington Group. The what? we hear readers ask. The Group, it seems, consists of higher education policy and institutional leaders from seven countries - Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States - and periodically it convenes seminars to discuss the higher education issues these countries share in common, such as providing affordable access or maintaining globally competitive workforces. The name was adopted following a meeting in Wellington, New Zealand in March 2007. Participation in the meetings of the group is limited to approximately five representatives from each country. Each country has a coordinator one of whose tasks is to select a diverse group of participants for each meeting. For England, Professor David Eastwood, Chief Executive of HEFCE, (at least until the end of March 2009), and a strong supporter (some might say sponsor) of our V-C, has the responsibility for assembling the representatives. Doubtless, Council and other bodies will in due course be hearing what transpired. Let's hope it was useful. Flying back on 5 December meant another opportunity for networking - a meeting of Universities UK, in London - had to be allocated to another member of the senior management team. A difficult choice? Not really, for the serious global networker. ****** National Pay Bargaining Staff may have been a little surprised to receive a communication from the Vice-Chancellor (before he left for Australia) informing them about developments with regard to the national pay bargaining machinery. One national union (UCU) has reservations about the new mechanism/procedures and has not yet agreed to it. The message mentioned that University Council had agreed to 'opt in' (see the report below) to the new mechanism, at least for the coming round. As an exercise in providing information this was all very well, but subtext wonders why the V-C then felt it necessary to point out that the university would be bound by a national code in relation to any industrial action, and that in the event that some staff do take industrial action the university will deduct pay. This will also cover staff taking action short of a strike. Such posturing might satisfy the secretive Human Resources Committee but it does the V-C no credit at all. Is there no one prepared to advise the V-C what is appropriate and what creates needless antagonism - or perhaps the latter was intended? A further indication of assertive management? ****** Academic Staff - what's meant? As mentioned in the Senate Report in subtext 35, recent proposals to amend Statute 20 at Lancaster (for the background, see subtexts passim, e.g. 24 and 26) from the University Secretary include changes to the definition of academic staff (currently defined in Statute 1). If the changes are agreed, and accepted by Senate, academic staff will be redefined as 'such employees of the University responsible for planning, directing and undertaking academic teaching and research and falling into the following categories: Vice-Chancellor; Deans and Pro-Vice-Chancellors; Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Readers and Professors. It is a definition which follows the definition used by HESA (the Higher Education Statistics Agency), but is much more restrictive: for example, it excludes research staff, teaching fellows and assistants and some academic staff in units such as Palatine (Performing Arts Learning and Teaching Innovation Network). The rationale for the proposed change is not yet clear nor is the final outcome but subtext would welcome views from readers. ****** College Bars Monitoring Group Early November provided us with another reason to wonder about the decisiveness of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (PVC) for Colleges and the Student Experience. Once again it involved the college bars and specifically the terms of reference of the so-called Monitoring Group. One might have assumed this group would be up and running by now, given where we are in the financial year, and that new management arrangements for the bars were introduced with effect from the start of this academic year (see subtext 41). It seems that the composition of the group has been an issue, and though its deliberations are intended to support the Commercial Director, an indication of the lack of trust all round would seem to be demonstrated by the fact it was felt necessary to make clear that whilst 'consultation is intended to be meaningful (i.e. a dialogue aimed at improving planning and decision making to the benefit of all) ... the Commercial Director carries the responsibility for operations (subject to approval of the Director of Finance and Resources) and so this group is not a decision making body or a management board'. Now where have we heard this before? That's right, it sounds like a formal description of UMAG! The terms of reference and composition of the group will be reviewed by the said PVC and Director of Finance and Resources after the first year of operation. However, the fact any proposed revisions must then be approved by the V-C would seem to be a further comment on the decisiveness and leadership of this particular PVC. ****** The Learning Zone As the orange hoardings proudly proclaim that the new development on the north side of Alexandra Square will provide 266 places, four meeting rooms, two lecture spaces, along with 22 computers - yes, really! - subtext drones have been grumbling about the cost and value for money of something that's starting to look like a vanity project. It seems the capital cost is currently over £3 million and insiders expect this to rise further, though we understand it is possible to hide rising project costs by reallocating them to other budget heads, such as major maintenance. It has happened before. In the meantime, we believe that the key question of who will be responsible for this space has yet to be resolved. Given that it is intended to offer 24/7 access this is hardly surprising. Rumours that staff on D Floor may bring to bear their expertise in surveillance and control are yet to be confirmed. ****** RAE Results: The Centre Gears Up As publication of the outcomes draws nearer, the institution is gearing up for how best to handle the inevitable communications issues, as detailed in a recent memo from PVC Trevor McMillan that has been circulated. The Director of Governance and Planning will have access to Lancaster data for all units of assessment on the morning of 17 December, will analyse these to produce various descriptors of the data, and will then deliver a weighted institutional score to Deans. Later that morning we will have access to the data for all other institutions and should be able to produce the relevant comparative data for the various units of assessment. Working with Heads of Department and others, Deans will then produce key messages from the data, which can be used by the centre to help it manage media enquiries and produce the key messages for the University and individual units of assessment. It is acknowledged that the process may be somewhat cumbersome but 'it is important that different parts of the university do not conflict with each other in approach and conclusions'. As if they would! This may come later, of course, once the funding decisions are known in March next year. The information is embargoed until midnight on the 17th and a headline release will be on the University's homepage on the 18th. All in all, it's not difficult to guess the main topic of conversation amongst academics and others in the weeks to come. Future careers and employment prospects may turn on Lancaster's performance, not least for several members of UMAG. ***************************************************** BORDER TROUBLES Amongst the many other things due to be discussed in the over-packed Senate meeting on 25 February will be a proposal for a new system for monitoring the attendance of all undergraduate and postgraduates at Lancaster. A background document from the Undergraduate Studies Committee working party developing the proposals frames the case for greater attendance monitoring for monitoring in terms of welfare, academic support and retention. But, more controversially the proposal is also presented as a way of responding to the additional legal requirements placed on HEIs by the government's new Points Based Immigration System, which charges universities and colleges with reporting any international students who have been absent from their studies to the UK Border Agency. These developments have to be placed in the context of the government's draft Immigration and Citizenship Bill, seen by many as a draconian piece of legislation which will, amongst other things, criminalise anyone 'obstructing or resisting' those engaged in exercising functions under the Act. The draft proposal on attendance monitoring, currently under consultation with departments, recommends the development of a system for automatic electronic attendance monitoring using library cards, linked to a further centralisation of room booking. This system will then be used to trigger reports to the Border Agency. Prior to the implementation of this system, it is proposed that staff would monitor attendance at least once a fortnight on every taught module. Concerns are being expressed around campus that inappropriate - and ultimately ineffective - policing functions are being smuggled in under the guise of a concern for student welfare and performance. Nationally, the University and College Union (UCU) has called for a campaign against the new rules, on the basis that it is not appropriate for the higher education sector to act as an arm of the UK Border Agency, and that such developments would have a damaging effect on staff-student relations. The National Critical Lawyers Group have also placed a petition on the Number 10 website (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Overseasstudent/). The closing date for feedback from departments on the draft proposal is 16 January. ***************************************************** PIAZZA QUATTRO STAGIONI Lancaster has always taken a (largely) justified pride in its provision of assistance for the disabled. The importance of planning in this provision has always been a point of emphasis. Which makes the situation at the newly refurbished County College all the more curious. For those unfamiliar with it, the approach to County from the Nuffield Theatre has always been windswept, and a rather inadequate and tatty covered way stopped some way short of the ten or so steps leading up to the College. There is no ramp, so wheelchair users have always had to go around the side of the building, approximately 50 yards of open country. As part of the refurbishment and creation of the new Piazza - a paved area with interesting lighting which will, no doubt, come in useful for sitting out and listening to the University Orchestra performing on the endless balmy evenings that characterise summers here - the covered way was torn down and replaced with a rather dull flower-bed. The assumption was that something similar would be put in its place, and some form of disabled access put in. This assumption was ill-founded. When it's raining, able-bodied people now have to sprint across the piazza, pausing only to admire the interesting lighting, before running up the steps. Wheelchair users still have to go around the side, but they have to go across the covered-way-less Piazza first, so the journey is now closer to 100 yards. In the rain. Would the cost of a covered way and a ramp have made a significant difference to the cost of the refurbishment? And can we still be proud of our disabled provision? While on this subject, senior members of County may remember a few years back that there was concern about the practice of students on rainy days running full-tilt out of the College and jumping the steps in one bound in order to reach the covered way faster. Some lengths were gone to to discourage this practice. Now that the rain-affected journey is even longer, students have been spotted doing it again, even though the surface is now even slipperier - and sometimes icy. Any bets on a broken ankle or the like before Christmas? We'd love to hear the views of Health and Safety on all this. ***************************************************** OF MISSIONS AND DRAWBRIDGES As reported in LU Text 413, our Vice-Chancellor has been advising the government on the relationship between universities and intellectual property (IP). Earlier in the year he was approached by John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to give strategic advice on 'how universities should manage IP for their own benefit and for the wider economy'. At the end of September he delivered his report - the remit letter and final report can be downloaded from http://www.dius.gov.uk/policy/intellectual_property.html. The report is very detailed and makes interesting reading. Its starting point is that the university as an institution has 'moved from being focussed on ideals and ideas to a broader agenda devoted to ideals, ideas and impact' (p. 4). subtext readers might recognise that description, while having varying opinions of whether that trend is something that ought to be encouraged or not. But even those who accept that direct benefit to wider society should be part of a university's mission might have different interpretations about how this should be conceived. Early in the report the V-C uses a broad framing, in terms of 'the economic, social and environmental benefits to the UK arising from its research activities', and at points the report acknowledges that the relationship between IP, innovation and societal well-being is complex. But much of the report tends to focus on the 'removal of barriers' to the private ownership and commercial exploitation of IP. It is interesting to see the V-C's survey of these issues, and to think about how our University might have positioned itself more creatively in terms of its 'third mission' of direct benefit to wider society than it has over recent years. For the proliferation of intellectual property can be detrimental rather than beneficial to the public good, by stifling rather than accelerating innovation and the flow of knowledge. Indeed, as the V-C himself hints, many companies too are uncomfortable with this development, on the basis that paying royalties to universities is paying twice for the same thing (the first time through taxes). Also, in many areas IP is frankly ineffective as a mechanism of commercialisation and income generation for universities: with the exception of the rare 'big thing' patent it tends to bring in very small amounts of money, and in most fields protection is not provided by a patent but simply by how hard it is for competitors to engineer around it (think of the i-Phone). Furthermore, the obsession with IP can deflect universities away from the long-term, basic research in which they, more than the private sector, have the freedom (and arguably the duty) to engage. However, what has attracted most attention in the press has not in fact been the V-C's take on such issues, but his views on the desirability of accelerating the tendency towards research resource concentration amongst universities. An interview with Professor Wellings published in the Times Higher of 27 November focuses on section four of the report, which dealt most closely with one of the four issues that he was asked to consider in the remit letter: 'the connection between research students and graduate schools and good IP generation and exploitation' (http://tinyurl.com/5m6ln2). In this section he recommends that the government target postgraduate training funds on those institutions with larger graduate schools, which also tend to be those with better records of research commercialisation. In the THE article the V-C is paraphrased as saying that 'the sector should continue to diversify so that by 2020 each region has just one or two major graduate schools.' So in the North West, for example, there would presumably be only one or two 'research' universities to take all the research income and all the PhDs, with all the others concentrating on teaching. All well and good, you might think, since the V-C has paid a lot of attention to getting Lancaster up the League Tables. The University website certainly proclaims Lancaster to be 'one of the top 'research star' universities in the UK, with the 3rd highest research income and the 2nd highest number of Phds in proportion to academic staff costs.' However, in the table that accompanies the THE article (available from a link in the right hand column of the online version) Manchester and Liverpool are unsurprisingly identified as the two universities that produce by far the most PhDs in the Northwest. Similarly, in a table on pp. 24-7 of the V-C's report, Lancaster comes third after Manchester and Liverpool in the NW on all metrics except IP income, where we're way outstripped by Chester (why is that, by the way?). Now, we at subtext do of course defend free speech. And Lancaster's Statute 20, that we are so keen on protecting, defends the right of University employees to voice uncomfortable truths as they see them, without fear of dismissal. But isn't there a danger here that our own beloved Vice-Chancellor is recommending the construction of a drawbridge on which Lancaster will probably be on the wrong side, when it's eventually pulled up? ***************************************************** REVIEW OF PUBLIC ARTS In subtext 30 we lamented the increasingly impoverished state of the Public Arts at the University of Lancaster, and the lack of a clear and appropriate location for them within the University's structure. The last 4-5 years have seen a decline in real terms of the funding put into the constituent parts of the public arts programme: the Lancaster International Concert Series, the Nuffield Theatre, and the Peter Scott Gallery. With core funding barely covering staff costs, their continuation has been increasingly dependent on gaining external funding (at which some parts have been more successful than others), and they have been under pressure to develop a clearer relation with the University's 'core business' of teaching and research. In 2005/6 the Public Arts became part of the newly formed Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary Arts (LICA), and became the subject of a lengthy and complex review process. As reported in LU Text 413 on 28 November, this review has now been completed, and its recommendations approved by the Vice-Chancellor (see http://tinyurl.com/6fhyuz). Significant and senior external advice has been sought, and the very fact of a new formal structure should give comfort to those concerned about the future in principle. The overall model seems to be for the Public Arts at the University to become more like an integrated arts centre (a particular model seems to have been Battersea Arts Centre, who has undergone recently similar changes), but one with real links to the teaching and research activities carried out at the University. The weight and seniority of the appointments puts in place arrangements with a permanent feel to them: there will be a Director of Public Arts, an Associate Director, and a Public Arts Curator. Interestingly, in these three posts will be combined two sorts of division of labour: one is hierarchical, in terms of who is charged with developing a 'strategic vision' for the public arts and who will deliver it; the other is flatter and functional, in that each of them is expected to have expertise in, and presumably more responsibility for, one of the three public art areas. There might be a danger here of a confusion of roles and powers which could create tensions and get in the way of delivering an integrated approach. Below these three, there will be a Senior Administrator, a Public Arts Assistant and a Keeper of Collections, a number of technicians working across the three areas, and people responsible for marketing, front of house and customer relations. So how are these organisational changes likely to affect the Public Arts at Lancaster in comparison with what we have been used to? If the new structure works effectively, the most significant likely effects seem to be threefold: greater integration across the constituent parts of the programme; more strategic direction from its new directorate; and more links to the teaching and research, both within LICA and across the rest of the University. Although only hinted at in the report, it is also likely that this will produce a greater emphasis on the contemporary and the experimental - though this will have to be balanced with the desire not to alienate existing audiences. Not everyone will be happy. In truth, it is the Peter Scott Gallery and the Lancaster Concerts that will probably undergo the most significant changes, and their existing supporters and customers over recent years may not all welcome the transformation to come. And, although the intention seems to be to retain as many of the existing staff as possible, in the transition to the new organisational structure there will clearly be winners and losers. But, overall, the new developments are surely to be given a cautious welcome. They are likely to give the Public Arts more power and influence at Lancaster, and, we hope, reverse their recent sad decline. If the new structure is indeed able to deliver on the promised combined strategic vision, the integration of the three areas should make possible exciting themed seasons across different media. We should also start to see the Public Arts open up more to the rest of the University - making it easier to collaborate and synergise with them in teaching and research activities, and making it far easier for the public arts to manifest themselves across the University, rather than being merely confined to the north end of campus. We wish them luck. ***************************************************** COUNCIL REPORT The University Council met on 21 November. The Vice-Chancellor gave a presentation on 'Institutional performance', using HESA data for 2006-07 to compare Lancaster with the entire university sector and a sub-group made up of the Russell and 94 groups of universities. On most measures Lancaster is fairly comfortably in the middle of the sub-group range. One exception is that we are recorded as having an unusually high percentage of part-time undergraduates, but the recent draconian restructuring of DCE will remedy that anomaly. Our UCAS scores have improved over the past five years, as have drop-out rates. We do better on the 'any employment or studying' after graduation measure than on the 'graduate employment' measure, and have the fifth highest percentage of the sub-group of students from state schools and colleges. We do relatively poorly on the research grant income per academic staff measure, but relatively well on the grant income per academic staff cost measure, taking subject mix into account. We should be doing better on the proportion of research income that is 'industry-related'. Council noted progress on restructuring the central administrative services, including the proposals - within the Vice-Chancellor's delegated powers - to have two pro-Vice-Chancellors and a permanent Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and to separate the governance of the university from its operations, the latter to become the responsibility of a Chief Operating Officer (or, presumably, COO). Council received the reports of the Audit Committee and the internal auditors, the report of Andrew Neal, the Director of Finance and Resources, and the annual accounts for the university. It was told that the university does not now have, and never has had, any exposure to Icelandic banks. Andrew Neal also presented financial forecasts to 2011-12. The main focus of concern was the payroll budget, which is projected to increase substantially in 2008-09 as a percentage of total expenditure, before gradually dropping again to below 60%. The Vice-Chancellor said that the Finance Committee would look again at this projection. Council approved the project for a Learning Zone in Bowland College, and was assured that 24-hour opening would be feasible, thanks to the employment of students for supervision and on the assumption that users of the Zone would behave responsibly, as students do in computer labs. The 'management issues' for the space would, however, be reviewed. Council was told that the Phase 5 residences project still looked feasible, though work was still needed on translating outline agreements on funding into a detailed financial model. The 'monoline wrap' which baffled some members at the previous meeting has now been discounted as a possible resource. The item of business that provoked most discussion was the proposal - presented by Fiona Aiken - that the University should opt into national bargaining arrangements on pay, for the forthcoming round only. This was agreed, although other possibilities - going it alone, or becoming part of a regional or 94 group for negotiating purposes - were discussed. It was also clear that the Human Resources Committee wishes to keep the issue open, and believes that the university should build its own negotiating capacity. On the other hand, 'loss of national pay bargaining structures' was presented as a risk, not an opportunity. (It is worth thinking about why the University might want to opt out of national bargaining structures, since there is no immediately obvious answer.) ***************************************************** GRADUOLOGY PROGRESSES WITH SEARCH FOR 'GOD AWARD' subtext readers will be pleased to know that the major subtext research collaboration into the conferring of degrees about which we published a world exclusive in subtext 42 has made startling new progress. Yesterday's postgraduate ceremonies saw the reconvening of the interdisciplinary research team that had turned this summer's series of undergraduate graduation ceremonies into a living laboratory, as they ran an exciting new set of experiments. This time, the team was enhanced by a large group of physicists who were at a loose end since the Large Hadron Collider broke down (it's safer to keep them busy - 'the devil finds work for idle hands', you know). For example, the physicists helped us to carry out a crucial experiment concerning the 'many-worlds' interpretation of degree ceremonies. As readers will know, this theory was famously devised during a tense meeting in Copenhagen during World War II to explain the seeming contradiction between the creation of degrees ex nihilo and Newton's fourth law of the conservation of glory. Where, exactly, do new awards come from? Can they really be created from nothing? In order to try to settle the long and bitter argument over such questions, the 12.00 noon ceremony was designed as a randomised double-blind control trial, with awards being conferred at random to groups from LUMS and from the University of Cumbria (very fetching blindfold, by the way, Sir Christian). It turns out it is indeed true that, for every degree that is conferred in OUR universe, one simultaneously disappears from a parallel one (for example, in Lancaster's case, apparently, it's Morecambe). After a long liquid lunch (those physicists sure know how to enjoy themselves), the 3.00 FASS ceremony was devoted to testing the famous Heisenberg/Derrida undecidability principle, which states that the more you know about WHO has a degree, the less you know about WHAT degree they actually have. This principle was confirmed using semi-post-structural interviews: by the end of the interviewing some new graduates got so confused about what degree they had just obtained that they had to get them re-conferred in a private ceremony that evening in a side-chapel. (We did have some qualms about this experiment, but then we remembered that we'd filled in an ethics form beforehand, so stopped worrying.) Two ceremonies were linked together in one technically challenging experiment in order to test the controversial idea of the existence of anti-awards. It has long been suspected that some students leave the University with less knowledge than they had when they started, but the support for this idea has been wholly anecdotal until yesterday, when we directly observed the spontaneous creation of a small number of anti-awards. Surprisingly, these were actually easier to find in the 5.00 pm FST/SHM ceremony, rather than in the FASS ceremony, as our physical friends had predicted (rather over-confidently, we thought). But a further breakthrough was achieved when an anti-MSc that was created in the 5.00 pm ceremony travelled back in time and collided with a positive MSc which had been conferred in the 10.00 am ceremony. This collision helped us to see what degrees are actually made of. The conventional wisdom - that degrees are made up of a certain number of ECTS credits - was utterly overturned when an anti-MSc in Mechanical Engineering was smashed into an MSc in Accounting and Financial Management, breaking it down into a small Italian child and a pile of white stuff that looked like fine oatmeal. Another theory put to the test yesterday was the 'wave' theory of disciplinary knowledge. Academics have frequently argued that one can detect interference patterns when radically different disciplines are put near to each other, due to peaks in one form of knowledge cancelling out troughs in the other. Such claims have become more frequent in recent years, since the move to single offices in places like Bowland North and County South, and the recent Research Assessment Exercise, have allowed finer measurements of the resulting points of zero-knowledge. Results in this area are still being analysed, but it is hoped that advances in the wave theory of knowledge could shed light on the phenomenon of academic bilocation - the idea that it is possible for academics to be in two places at once. So far, the only evidence for this comes from auditors on the basis of expense claims submitted by senior academics. One exciting practical innovation in the latest round of graduology experiments was the development of a new system of funding, in the form of 'renting' out certain ceremonies to organisations with an interest in pursuing specific research questions. Thus, the 10.00 LUMS ceremony was sponsored by the Socialist Workers' Party, which was keen to use this opportunity to carry out an empirical test of the beloved theory of dialectical materialism. To their chagrin, we found that having a degree was not, as our sponsors had confidently predicted, totally reducible to relations with the means of production. Their spirits were momentarily raised in the afternoon by reports that our researchers kept detecting a raised level of bourgeois ideology near the back of the hall; however a meta-analysis suggested that that this was merely due to leakage from the Peter Scott Gallery. We plan to continue this exciting research initiative next July. Watch
this space. LETTERS Dear subtext, I am, of course, as opposed to bullying as the next person. I am also opposed to sloppy interpretation of survey results. Your article, on the basis of surveys, talks about so many people 'being bullied'. What the survey shows is the proportion of people who say or think that they are being/have been bullied. Still an issue, no doubt, but not the same as actually being bullied. Prof. D. Denver, Politics and International Relations ******* Dear subtext, As both a student and a person who has been previously involved in a relationship which abused a position of trust, I feel qualified to comment upon the recent article concerning consensual staff/student relationships. I have been reading subtext, albeit sporadically, since I happened upon it in my first year and have enjoyed much of what I have read. Whilst I feel that subtext fulfils an important function, I felt this article did no justice to the 'pedigree' of the publication! Three years ago I came to university to try and escape painful memories and reinvent myself following my personal 3 year ordeal and am aghast at the views I have read in issue 43! I still cannot quite believe that the editorial staff of subtext allowed a piece to be published, which so blatantly attempts to negate the nature of the power imbalance (usually between older male staff and younger female undergrads) in these relationships. The article adopted a nauseatingly Pygmalionesque view of staff/student sexual relationships, rather than face the reality of the situation, which is that, ethically, they're plain wrong. Where was any consideration given to those students who may feel pressured into embarking on a relationship, or who finds they cannot leave one for fear of their grades suffering? What about the psychological damage these 'relationships' can cause? There is also the distinct possibility that the student's peers may alienate them and inevitably regard their subsequent marks with some suspicion, whether they are taught by the member of staff or not. Especially disquieting is the fact that the author apparently believes that it is perfectly possible and appropriate to fall in love, within the context of a lecture or seminar, with a student who has paid money to the University be taught. It's total madness! And when one considers a scenario where a partially fiscal relationship mutates to incorporate a sexual one, perhaps rather unsavoury parallels may be evinced! That anyone would pluck such a topic out of thin air and be moved to write about it mystifies me and I would be interested to hear the author's rationale. This article would have been more worthy of the pages of the tabloids, so enamoured of the sniggering schoolboy mentality, than those of an academic institution's supposedly 'subversive' publication. Although I can only guess the gender of the author and make the following comment both to illustrate an important point and to show that I'm not entirely without humour; may I suggest that they consider visiting their GP, (who, incidentally, could be struck-off for forming a sexual relationship with a patient) ... as it seems to me that they may be suffering from penile dementia?! S Warde-Jones [Editors: we're pleased that the original subtext article on the topic has produced a reader response. We recognise that this is a complex issue, about which there are divergent points of view (for a THE article exploring the topic, see http://tinyurl.com/6jxh2b). If our own University were more effective at dealing with overt cases of sexual harassment and the abuse of power, perhaps the issue would not be so highly charged.] ******* Dear subtext, Alex Finch, Physics ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |