| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 53 14 May 2009 ***************************************************** '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, redundancy committee, faculty restructuring, council report, a view from/of Oxford, subtext research team accidentally breaks university charter, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL At the end of another hard day in their respective academic departments, the subtext editors were in their eponymous warehouse enjoying a rejuvenating glass of claret (the champagne bought for the 50th issue celebrations having inexplicably run out). Two of the more vinous editors were expostulating on the relative merits of the 1982 Chateau Gloria and the 1990 Chateau Montrose (the connoisseurs among our readers will know that there is no contest). They were, however, abruptly awoken from their claret fuelled reverie by a whirring sound emanating from the direction of the antiquated subtext fax machine. Assiduous as ever, our correspondents had been hard at work and were sending us the fruits of their labours. The document clattering through was entitled 'Senate report' and it was read with burning interest. Had Senators responded to subtext's rare call to arms? Had they realised what important issues were at their disposal? Had they decided to follow Oxford's example in making the Vice-Chancellor utterly clear about their position in matters of governance? As an editor read the report aloud, and reached the sentence: 'The Vice-Chancellor declared that Senate would have to vote on whether or not it wished to vote on the amendment', there was a collective groan and glasses were lowered. However, when the words: '22 Senators declared themselves willing to hear the motion but 33 were not prepared even to entertain it', several glasses were dashed to the floor. Thirty-three scholars not willing to listen to the evidence; thirty-three members of Senate not prepared to engage in debate; thirty-three members of the university endorsing dogmatism and prejudice? The editors spoke no more but stumbled silently out into the light evening rain. The next morning, over coffee, one spoke into the continuing silence: 'surely, here is a project as worthy of research as that of graduology. Why would Senators vote in favour of a bar to discussion; an intriguing question, almost akin to why scholars would vote against scholarship.' 'An excellent idea', came the muted reply, 'And the results might cast further light on the subtext motto'. The research, subject only to funding and to recognition of its value to industry, is already under way, and we shall report further. In the meanwhile, dear reader, we invite you to collaborate with us on this project. Any ideas or thoughts? Please send them in. We'll be waiting by that fax machine. ***************************************************** REDUNDANCY COMMITTEE The University Secretary has issued a call for nominations of individuals to serve on the Redundancy Committee that was recently approved by Council. Potential members need not be Senators although membership will need to be approved by the Committee of Senate. A parallel process is also underway seeking the services of Council members. Given that the management have insisted that the decision does not reflect any immediate plans for redundancies, some were surprised to learn that the Committee will meet in September with a view to reporting to Council in October. Inevitably, training will be provided for members of the committee, although it is interesting to speculate on what sort of exceptional training will be required for this, as opposed to other, university committees. A message has also been circulated from the Lancaster branch of UCU reminding all members that national union policy is not to cooperate with any such procedures. subtext will watch with interest as membership of the Committee evolves. ***************************************************** FACULTY RESTRUCTURING Those anticipating institutional restructuring at Lancaster in light of RAE 2008 have not had to wait long to see what form it will take - in one Faculty, at any rate. Tony McEnery, Dean of FASS, has set up what is being described as the 'Resilience Project' which looks to entail a major re-organisation of the faculty's academic structures and activities in the next few years. It has to be said that this project is not being driven solely by the post-RAE financial settlement. A couple of years ago, it was announced that there were to be significant changes in the way in which universities' QR (research) income is calculated. Needless to say, government has decreed that QR funding will be calculated on 'utilitarian' grounds, i.e. priority will be given to departments whose research is deemed to be 'useful' to business, industry, the economy and the wider community. In other words, the government wants all universities to become polytechnics. Such a policy clearly has negative implications for the Arts and Humanities. To help deal with this, the government announced an 'interim settlement' which is due to end in 2010. After this, the Arts and Humanities, departments in which form a significant segment of FASS, will experience the full force of the new policy. The purpose of the 'Resilience Project' is apparently to enable FASS to weather this storm as best it can, taking into account the financial implications of RAE 2008. In this respect, it has to be said that there is not a direct correlation between RAE research performance and financial rewards. For instance, Sociology, in spite of coming fifth in its subject area, has suffered financially, largely because of a series of contingent factors in the funding calculations conspired against them. Religious Studies performed respectably academically but suffered financially, primarily because of its smaller unit size. Meanwhile, the overall performance of Politics was poor on both academic and financial fronts. It is therefore not surprising that these three departments are within the remit of the 'Resilience Project'. But also to be included is Educational Research, which has likewise suffered financially; Philosophy, for no obvious reason other than the currently inhospitable climate for small departments; Media, Film and Cultural Studies (the former ICR), because it is claimed that it is now dependent on a range of other departments for its future health; and IAS, a surprising inclusion, apparently on the grounds of the faculty's large investment in it in research terms and the extent to which this is to be considered proportionate. Of these departments, it seems at first sight that Educational Research
and Sociology will experience the lightest touch, being required to undergo
the now familiar faculty process of a 'strategic intervention,' Philosophy, Politics and Religious Studies are to be merged into a new confederation, possibly called the 'Lancaster Institute for Contemporary Thought.' It is thought that these three departments will maintain their current undergraduate degree schemes (somewhat analogous to LICA although without, of course, anything like the same degree of financial investment). It looks as though ICR will be scattered to the winds, with staff there being located to various other departments, LICA in particular. What will be the implications for IAS remains unclear. Reactions from affected parties have so far been mixed. Some have been
seeing the patterns in the tea leaves for some time, while others have
been caught completely off guard. But many have been keen to stress an
important distinction between the merits or otherwise of the proposals
and the manner in which they are being imposed. On the merits of the issues,
many are reserving judgement until further details become clearer, and
some are open to the potential benefits of at least some of As for the manner in which these wide ranging reforms have been announced and imposed, there is much more hostility. Of course, the relevant documents received by staff couches all this in the language of 'explore,' 'possibly,' 'potential,' 'discussion,' but the barely concealed subtext is that all departments concerned are being presented with a fait accompli. There has been no organic and collegial process of consultation, discussion, explanation and exchanges of views. For most staff, these documents took the form of an 'Olympian fiat', another manifestation of the 'macho management' that has now become the norm at Lancaster. At a time when the government clearly wants all universities to become polytechnics in research terms, it is interesting to observe that the university response is 'managed' in a way that suggests that, in governance terms, it has become a polytechnic already (see Alan Dix's letter in subtext 32). As for the merits of the proposals, we shall have to watch this space - passively, of course. ***************************************************** COUNCIL REPORT In the absence of anything on the agenda about redundancy procedures, the University Council met quietly, peaceably and relatively briefly on Friday 8th May. The Vice-Chancellor reported as usual on parochial, regional, national and international affairs. He updated Council on Lancaster's position in the latest league tables (pretty good, except for graduate employment, and even this is becoming less bad), and on the latest news about the impact on higher education of the projected cuts in public spending ('nowhere near as bad as it could have been', with the full impact to be felt in 2010-11). The main item of business was the draft strategic plan, which Senate had discussed on 22 April. The Vice-Chancellor noted that when the process of revising the plan began in July last year, the economic outlook was brighter than it is now. Five lean years were to be expected, meaning slower growth and an increased reliance on non-government funding. Teaching partnerships with institutions overseas would become increasingly important. We should be trying to increase PGR recruitment and improve completion rates. The annual operating surplus should prudentially be increased from 4% to 5%; no Council member suggested that this was too high, but some wondered if it was high enough. One remarked that if income did not grow as projected it would always be possible to reduce the number of staff. In response to a pertinent question, the Vice-Chancellor said that the plan was intended primarily for internal use: Council routinely receives reports on risk and performance indicators which are derived from the current plan. The Director of Finance and the Chief Operating Officer presented brief reports, including plans for the refurbishment of the Faraday Complex (a collection of teaching spaces, not a pathological mental condition). The University Secretary reported on pay negotiations, saying that the University had been among 70 institutions that had challenged the legality of the UCU ballot on industrial action, and had received a very unsatisfactory response from UCU. She acknowledged that the ballot papers emphasised the defence of jobs rather than an increase in pay. She also presented minor changes to Statutes and Ordinances, and said that she hoped to bring less minor proposals - to amend Statute 20 - to the next meeting. Council noted the appointment process for a University Librarian to replace Jacqueline Whiteside, and recorded its warm appreciation of her work over the past 15 years. ***************************************************** A VIEW FROM/OF OXFORD A term of sabbatical leave spent as a Visiting Fellow of one of the colleges of the University of Oxford gave one member of the subtext editorial collective an opportunity to gain an insider's view of another place. Indeed, it was an opportunity taken with alacrity, and not only because of the opportunity it afforded of a period of uninterrupted research in a refreshingly different environment. subtext has often looked to Oxford with admiration given the recent willingness of academics to defend their integrity and autonomy, culminating in the sensational defeat of the Vice-Chancellor governance reform package. It was therefore an interesting opportunity to witness life in the contemporary University of Oxford at first hand. My visit began auspiciously. On my first morning in Oxford, I strolled through the centre of the town to what was to be my college for the term. Winding my way down New College Lane, I heard the distant cries of what sounded like a genuine student protest. Could it be that I was about to witness what many at Lancaster have declared to be an extinct phenomenon? As the Bodleian library came into view, I realised that I was. A group of around 80 students were demonstrating outside the Clarendon Building, with a number of police officers looking quietly on. The protest was refreshingly non-parochial, it being directed against the Israeli attack on Gaza. As far as the university dimension was concerned, they were demanding that a lecture series at Balliol College, inaugurated by Shimon Peres be cancelled, and that the university cut its links with BAE systems, a company which supplies the Israeli military. When I retraced my footsteps at lunch time, I had expected the protest to have entirely dissipated, but, to my surprise, their numbers seemed only to have swelled. One had to admire their stamina, and I walked on down Broad Street with a spring in my step. It could be, of course, that student protest has been rejuvenated by the example set by their teachers. Being invited to a number of dinners at various colleges over the term, I had an opportunity to talk with a great many college fellows, and it was evident that memories of the recent governance battle are still fresh. One of the first to raise this with me was a Senior Tutor of one of the colleges. She was evidently not a firebrand and she took a very balanced view of governance reforms. She accepted that some things needed changing and had in the past given positive support to reforms that she deemed to be worthy. But she was nonetheless one of the majority who voted against the V-C's reform package. For her, they represented an unacceptable infringement of academic autonomy, in governance terms. Transferring power to externals, most of whom were already from the world of business, risked weakening academic integrity, a phenomenon that is already all too familiar. Indeed, what struck me about these conversations was that many of my
interlocutors were by no means 'natural' rebels (one could hardly imagine
them volunteering to edit subtext!). But they felt that there were issues
of principle at stake which could not be ignored. Another dinner companion
was a senior Modern Languages Professor and Fellow of one of the more
modern (in Oxford terms) colleges. He told me that in all his career,
he had never been actively involved in any campaign, neither had he taken
a great deal of interest in university politics. But when proposals came
forward which would have given ultimate university control to businessmen,
lawyers, managers, however worthy they might be in their own fields, he
felt that this was a step too far. When those who had laboured long and hard to defeat these governance proposals achieved their goal, their reaction was little short of euphoric. Indeed, I was told that when the result of the crucial vote was publicly announced, one very senior Professor (who happens to be an American), leaped out of his seat shouting 'Yessssss ...', reminiscent of an American football fan who has just seen his team score the touchdown that would secure them the victory. But once the celebratory parties had subsided, everyone knew that the victory was only a temporary one. No one expected the authorities would give up that easily. And indeed, many looked to the future with foreboding, as they were sure that the same reforms would now be proposed piecemeal, by stealth, opposition to which is much more difficult to galvanize. There were the occasional sideways glances of admiration in the direction of Cambridge, where the V-C, Alison Richard, seems to have approached things much more tactfully. Indeed, it seems that the committee charged with appointing Oxford's new VC were casting glances in the same direction. For Oxford's VC-designate currently holds the job formerly held by Cambridge's VC, that of Provost of Yale. At this rate, would-be VCs of Oxford and Cambridge would do well to set their sights on becoming Provost of Yale. Like Alison Richard but unlike John Hood (Oxford's current VC), Andrew Hamilton's background is thoroughly academic. Not an Oxford man himself, he was nonetheless educated at two fine institutions (Exeter and Cambridge). A renowned biochemist and FRS, he has risen through the scholarly ranks, distinguishing himself academically along the way. This is in stark contrast to the current incumbent who, before becoming a VC, spent 18 years with Fletcher Challenge Ltd, then a large New Zealand company with holdings in construction and energy. Oxford dons are not expecting Hamilton to be an angel of deliverance and he will be as subject to external pressures from government, HEFCE and other interfering bodies as was his predecessor. But they are hopeful that he will be more personally attuned to core academic values and that his approach may emulate that of his predecessor at Yale, who, on arriving at Cambridge, turned away from acrimonious disputes over governance and concentrated on securing the university's finances. To the outsider, Oxford may appear to be financially well-endowed. But in this as in so many other respects, things in Oxford are not always as they seem. While certainly wealthy compared to many other universities, it can certainly not afford to be profligate. Neither is the wealth equally shared. One Head of House told me that on taking up her position, she inspected her new College Lodgings with dismay. Maintenance had been neglected for decades and some rooms were barely habitable. But she knew that she was about to head a college with virtually no resources and that a refurbishment of her Lodgings, however much overdue, were by no means a priority. So she paid out of her own pocket the cost of a full refurbishment and re-decoration. Not only would this make her own life more pleasant but she also considered it to be her own financial legacy to the college. This was by no means an exceptional instance of institutional loyalty. It was clear that the poorer colleges are keenly aware of their financially precarious positions and that they need to implement serious and urgent strategies in order to secure their very existence. I was acutely aware of long, acrimonious and fractious meetings at which various such strategies were being hammered out. As this inevitably involved reassessments of a college's identity, priorities and objectives, a certain divisiveness was to be expected. But colleges are inherently democratic places (and constitutionally independent), so whatever decisions are ultimately reached, fellows can at least console themselves that they are not being imposed from above. But some things in Oxford remain the same. At one dinner, I was confronted by the sight of a fellow diner wearing the full dress of a member of the Bullingdon Club, complete with velvet tail coat, buff waistcoat and light blue bow tie. Readers may well be aware that this is the predominantly aristocratic and Etonian university dining club, to which David Cameron and George Osborne both belonged. After dinner, we fell into conversation, much of it revolving around such quintessentially Bullingdon topics as house parties, champagne vintages and lamentations for the demise of fox hunting. He was a most entertaining conversationalist and, several brandies later, we parted on terms of mutual affection. The next day, I made some discreet enquiries into the background of my new friend and was surprised by what I discovered. Not only was he an unusual Bullingdon member in that he was neither an aristocrat nor an Etonian, but, even more unusually, he was in fact a Californian and the son of one of the members of the 1960s pop group, The Beach Boys. I had been taught, yet again, that in Oxford, things are not always what they seem. ***************************************************** SUBTEXT RESEARCH TEAM ACCIDENTALLY BREAKS UNIVERSITY CHARTER As reported in subtext 49, an extensive structural survey has confirmed our worst fears about the state of the University Charter following events at December's postgraduate ceremonies. It seems that letting idiots - I mean, highly trained researchers - manipulate Lancaster's degree ceremonies in order to investigate properties of the space-time continuum is one thing. But allowing them to create awards for the express purpose of smashing them into each other at high velocities to see what they're made of is, as they say, quite another. (We know it was our idea, but we thought we'd say it before anyone else did.) Readers will of course know that in order to create valid awards a university needs very firm foundations indeed. Lancaster is typical of British universities in having a foundation made of three main interlocking parts: the Charter, made of steel-reinforced concrete, which establishes that there is a University of Lancaster (that's a relief, then), and enumerates its powers, ruling bodies and principal posts of office; the heavy, cast-iron Statutes, which go into more detail about the constitution, purpose and powers of the University's ruling bodies and the rights of staff and students; and the Ordinances, setting down policies and procedures - these are made from angle-iron and MDF and therefore far easier to alter and replace. Despite undergoing various modifications over the years, this composite structure has served us well (you can see the pre-accident version at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/gap/GAP2007/Charter-Statutes-Ordinances.doc). But that was then. The main effect of December's explosion has been to push Statutes 19-24 down the document and turn them into Ordinances. There is some surprise that this has happened, since Statutes are supposed to be extremely resistant to being moved or altered. Indeed, the received wisdom is that this can only be done by the Queen (she gained experience in such procedures, and a lovely set of jewel-encrusted spanners, while working as apprentice to constitutional expert Edward Iwi as part of her contribution to the war effort in the early 1940s). In addition, Ordinance 2 was left hanging on by a mere subclause - and after the earthquake of 28 April was found to have completely vanished. As readers will all know, Ordinance 2 determines which officer of the University has custody of the University seal, and under what conditions they are allowed to fix it to instruments. During this constitutional crisis, the Beadle has ceremonially removed the seal from the pool on D-Floor, and released it into Lake Carter pending further decisions. Do not approach with any instrument, in case it becomes attached. The explosion also contaminated the preamble of the Charter with soot. This means that, until it can be cleaned, the University has to be referred to in official documents (such as the agreements being drawn up with Lancaster City Council to develop Lancaster Science Park) as the Un*****ity of Lanc***er (or Blobbyland for short). An inquiry is under way to establish why the damage was so extensive. Some are blaming the notorious glacial clay of Bail Rigg, which expands and contracts with the seasons (by the end of the hot summer of 1976 Bail Rigg had become Bail Valley, with only the top three storeys of Bowland Tower visible from the A6). Readers who saw the fourteenth-century tapestry depicting the digging of the fundaments of the University when it was displayed in the Library a couple of years ago will recall the Boschian horror of it all (five huge wooden cranes operated by trolls and journeymen double-parking their wagons all round the perimeter road). Others blame the way that recent tinkering with the Statutes has left them in a patchwork state, with very uneven numbering, which means that awards follow a highly erratic trajectory on their way to conferral in the Great Hall. Awards are created in a burst of quarks at paragraph 4c of the Charter, where it says something like 'the University shall have the power to grant Degrees and other academic distinctions to persons who shall have blah, blah, blah' (the 'shalls' are important - some universities could only afford 'wills' for their charters and their degrees don't last half as long). But awards do not become subject to the powers of the Senate to regulate and control them until Ordinance 5a (said powers having been moved down there from Statue 12 in 2007). This means that degrees meander aimlessly through the Statutes, and then suddenly pick up speed with a jerk around Ordinance 5a, making their subsequent path very hard to predict. Some have made accusations of foul-play. The University Secretary was seen hanging around at the back of the hall during the December ceremony, and is now suggesting that Statute 20, which protects the right of academic staff 'to question and test received wisdom' (now looking a lot less impressive as Ordinance 1e) is too damaged to move back into Statutes and should be left as an Ordinance. But subtext insists that no fingers should be pointed until the official inquiry is complete. Repair work is now underway. Luckily, the University has an in-house team of constitutional lawyers (you may have seen them hanging around campus in their horsehair wigs). They're working in shifts day and night to repair the Charter (we suggested they changed back into their judicial boilersuits with bell-shaped sleeves and ermine trim, but they said the shifts were more comfortable). They are reasonably confident that it will be ready in time for undergraduate congregation in July. In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent, subtext apologises for any inconvenience caused. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, As always subtext contains some interesting comments regarding the amazing ability of the University to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For once I would like to support one of their design decisions regarding the new building for ISS and not using the waste heat for the swimming pool. Having spent some time talking to an air conditioning engineer regarding our waste heat being put into a swimming pool he pointed out that the dehumidification equipment in most swimming pools generates enough heat to heat the pool to the correct temperature. As a result giving the swimming pool about 500 kilowatts of waste heat would not be entirely beneficial unless a new 1000 seat sauna complex were being planned. Unfortunately this is where my agreement with the waste heat disposal plan for the new ISS building ends. The building will be using this terribly named technology called 'Free Cooling' which, on the face of it, costs you very little electricity to get rid of your excess heat. Perhaps a better option would be heat recovery into the hot ring round the University to provide hot water and heating to buildings. Having discussed this with several people in the know it would be expensive to modify the current hot ring round the University to run cool enough to make this a viable solution and would probably require powered heat pumps rather than passive heat exchangers currently used in most buildings. Perhaps a radical new solution should have been considered as a replacement for the CHP plant in which a big heat pump would separate heat to give a hot and cold ring around campus. These could then be used for places needing heating that currently use gas (residences) and those that take heat from the CHP plant (offices). The cool ring could be used for all places that currently use air conditioning. This could give massive savings in terms of carbon emissions over the whole of campus as the excess heat would be recycled rather than wasted. Finally I see we will soon have plenty of power to continue wasting and feel good about saving the environment at the same time with the plan to build two giant wind mills on Hazelrigg. That said, I do feel that the wind farm is very good thing as long as continued and effective efforts are made to reduce power consumption across campus rather than the all too common attitude of 'It's OK to use more - this electricity is from a renewable source'. Richard du Feu, Information Systems Services ********** Dear subtext, In subtext 52, it was said that a fire officer, attending the university in response to yet another student prank, made the point that one day, 'there will be a serious fire somewhere nearby, and people will die because the fire engines and officers who might have been able to save them did not get there in time because they were attending a hoax call at the University.' I believe that this very situation has already happened. During one of these hoax call-outs, I recall a fire officer mentioning that in the early days they sent all fire engines from the city centre to the university whenever the alarm was raised. However, he then went onto say that there had been an incident where another fire broke out in town whilst all three engines and crew were attending a hoax activation at the university. As a result, there was a tragic loss of life. Consequently, they changed the procedures and only sent two engines to the university, along with the turntable from Morecambe leaving one engine in the city centre and a second engine en route from Morecambe. I heard this in the mid 90's and I'm not sure if there is any quick way to confirm its accuracy. I'm sure it would have made the local press, and presumably the fire station will have a record of changes of procedures of this nature. There is also another angle on the situation and that is that the number of activations at the university apparently allows for a higher permanent crew on site at the Lancaster station. Reliable fire detection systems are incredibly difficult to design/expensive to install and maintain, especially when they have to accommodate the stupidity of some individuals who work/live in close proximity to them. What do you think the local reaction might be if we started to see 'please insert ID card and PIN before using this emergency facility' above every panic button on campus? Dave Ingles, Information Systems Services ********** Dear subtext, Regarding the suggestion that needing to walk there might deter people from using the new Sports Centre, see attached image: http://flann4.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/escalator.jpg Cheers, Peter Diggle, School of Health and Medicine ********** Dear subtext, Greetings from Rummidge (you would have a field day here), and congratulations on a bumper number. Amidst the doom and gloom (you try working in the Humanities in a university with a biiiig Medical School and lots of engineers), it's good to be able to laugh at the happenstance of institutional life. And lovely to hear that the more things change, the more they stay the same. From a Lancastrian at heart, Kate Newey, University of Birmingham ****************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical |
