| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 55 11 June 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, news in brief, redundancy pool, Alexandra Square, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL 'In, three, two, one ...' The two editors on duty each pressed the red 'send' button in front of them. We heard the satisfying low rumble of subtext 54 rolling out of the warehouse, and all sat back with relief. Another issue was out in the world. (Two buttons, you ask? Oh yes, we had them installed last month, eight feet apart, in order to try to stop us sending out rough drafts and shopping lists by mistake.) Then, just one minute later, a single 'ping', sounding rather like the sonar on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, alerted us that one copy had bounced back undelivered. Puzzled, we opened the bounce email to find an automated message from the University of Cumbria web server. It appeared that the scatological language used in one of the letters included in the issue was judged to be a bit too much for subscribers employed there, as it informed us in its inimitable prose:
For a few minutes we were quite impressed by the way it had spotted the apparently offensive word, isolated it before it could do any damage, and sent it straight back. Quite a party trick - rather like being able to regurgitate just the one oyster that's making you feel queasy. But after a little thought we started to be a bit more sceptical. Surely this was pretty low grade programming, that didn't have a hope in h**l of distinguishing between, say, proper abusive swearing and mere idiomatic or emphatic swearing - let alone dysphemistic swearing. And surely, if these are all offensive, they are so in radically different ways? And anyway, can't an email be offensive while being composed of individual words that are by themselves completely well-behaved and polite? So we diverted ourselves from marking exam scripts by spending a couple of hours lobbing words and phrases at the University of Cumbria firewall, to see what would get through and what wouldn't. It felt like being a kid again, chucking sticks at an electric fence. We started by forwarding some emails that we'd received ourselves and considered offensive - containing words and phrases like 'resilience' 'redundancy committee' and so on. Not a blip. Sailed right through the defences. We were not impressed. For a while we started to think they had switched off the filter - so we checked that it was still on by sending over a real doozy just to check - a word so rude that even if you replace all of its letters by asterisks it would make an MP blush. As it crossed Bowerham Road it disappeared with a flash and crackle like a mosquito hitting a bug zapper. All that was left was the offending word itself, which the web server, with a face like thunder, returned to us held by its ear like a (very) naughty schoolboy. Then something occurred to us - if subtext 54 was offensive, then wasn't the automatic reply that they had sent containing the key word at least as offensive? Surely it was 100% pure, distilled offense! So, on the basis that two wrongs don't make a right, wouldn't we be justified in retaliating, and sending it back? But wait - wouldn't the reply sent from our web server to theirs trigger another one, and so on ad infinitum? How would it all end? We had to know. So we got ISS to set up a simple expletive filter on our account, and sent across a Latvian swearword taught to us by our new cleaner. Brilliant - it ping-ponged back and forth for an hour or so. It was like a couple of kids - 'you're offensive' - 'no, you're offensive' - 'no, you're offensive'. Eventually a spoilsport technician at one end or the other must have reset one of the filters - game over. We decided to try them with the old 'Scunthorpe' trick. At the first pass, the University of Cumbria web server smelled a rat but couldn't quite decide why. It bounced the whole word back to the LU filter to see what it thought of it. They quickly whittled this down to the offending four-letter word and bounced this back and forth between them for about 90 minutes. Then they suddenly seemed to lose interest, like a pair of dogs after a tussle over a stick - they just pounced on it, shredded it down to the 'u' and lobbed it across towards Lancaster and Morecambe College. Okay, fun over, we said - back to the marking. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Centros public inquiry opens subtext has commented in past issues on the controversial plans by the developer Centros to create a retail and residential complex on the Canal Corridor Site in Lancaster. The public inquiry into their proposals opens at Lancaster Town Hall at 10.00 next Tuesday, 16 June, and is expected to last about three weeks. As we reported, Centros themselves will not be attending the inquiry, leaving the defence of their plans to Lancaster City Council. In a further development, Its Our City, the main group opposing Centros, have been complaining that the presentation of their own evidence has been squeezed into the last day of the inquiry. subtext will report on proceedings so far in the next issue. ****** Student complaints/Deanery reports Much has been made in the education press recently about the increase in complaints about university standards to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). Last year 900 such complaints were received, though only 63 were upheld. The OIA deals with complaints that hitherto were directed at the University Visitor (in many cases the Queen). Many of the complaints relate to teaching and assessment but it should also be noted that the OIA is also the final place for appeals for non-academic disciplinary offences. Here at Lancaster, buried within the report items for a Michaelmas Term Senate will be a report from the University Dean, using material from the college deans, on the state of non-academic discipline in the University. Controversially, the report of the last academic year was leaked, prior to official publication, to SCAN upon whom pressure was applied in order that the story be dropped. Interest is sometimes national in such matters, however, and every year there are FOI requests for information on misbehaving students. ****** Who's in charge? Further evidence, if it were needed, of the current senior management's approach to involvement and decision making has come to light with the recent appointment of the new post of Director for Student-Based Services. Apparently, when the previous Head of Student Services was appointed two years ago, LUSU made plain their dissatisfaction with the lack of consultation and involvement on this key student-facing post. At the time an undertaking was given that this failure would not be repeated. However, as LUSU have recently found out, it once again turned out to be a hollow promise. Notwithstanding past commitments, the new Director was appointed without any input from LUSU. It seems that the COO (Chief Operating Officer) does not feel it necessary or appropriate to have such involvement, as he no doubt sees them as mainly key appointments to his management team. It's hardly surprising that LUSU continue to raise complaints about being bypassed. ****** Abolition of Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) After just two years of existence, the DIUS has been merged with the Department for Business, Skills, and Enterprise. Government has justified the move as one which 'puts the UK's further education system and universities closer to the heart of government thinking about building now for the upturn'. Union leaders in the sector were less optimistic. Sally Hunt, General Secretary of UCU, reacted to the news by saying that the 'merger seems to signal that further and higher education are no longer considered important enough to have a department of their own'. The new minister for the department is Lord Mandelson. It is unclear as to whether or not the Vice-Chancellor will have the same cordial relations with the new minister as he did with John Denham (see subtext Senate reports passim). ****** Graduate Bar Real Ale and Cider Festival Graduate College Bar will hold its eighth annual real ale and cider festival between Thursday 18 June and 21 June 2009. Graduate Bar holds a unique place within the University, being the first bar to hold a real ale festival and also being the first University bar to enter the Good Beer Guide. Lancaster favourites 'Tin Pan Alley' will play on the Thursday night, while 'The Convulsions' take to the stage on the Friday. A barbeque will also be available. ****** Barbeques ... Talking of barbeques, since the fire at a bin store located close to Pendle College, the University has been milling about to reach a policy that will prevent a subsequent blaze. As the proposals on offer do not include replacing plastic bins with metal ones, a number of suggestions to regulate barbeques have been circulated. subtext understands that the debate is polarised between the college and University deans on one hand, who believe that regulation is unlikely to either work or be enforceable, and D-floor on the other, where the general feeling is that a ban on barbeques would be best. As a compromise the University Secretary has designated a number of areas as zones in which barbeques are permitted (though it is still unclear how 'offenders' will be punished). Departments and colleges (such as Biology and Furness) whose barbeques are outside of the allotted zones have been informed that they are not to use their perfectly safe barbeques. ****** ... and pyres subtext has been informed that a number of Furness students were approached recently by Security and asked to put out a small late-night bonfire upon which they were toasting marshmallows. Whilst the students were in a designated barbeque area, the security officer in attendance explained that a call had been received from The Croft complaining about the fire. It conjures up an interesting image of the Vice-Chancellor on fire watch. ****** Changes to bar signs subtext is led to believe that head of hospitalities David Peeks has ordered the removal of the signs above college bar entrances that associate a licensee with the legal sale of alcohol on and off the premises. These signs, a part of pub livery for many years, are no longer required under the Licensing Act 2003. Nevertheless, given that most pubs have not taken down the signs, one is left wondering if the removal of signs identifying one person with one particular outlet has more ominous motivations behind it. ****** Mail Room Members of staff have been circulated a message from Strategic Purchasing informing them that 'a number of personal items have been sent to the Mailroom recently in University PPI [pre-paid] envelopes'. Staff are reminded that the envelopes are strictly for business purposes and that 'any personal mail found in PPI envelopes will be returned to you and your head of department may be informed'. It is unclear as to how the discovery of the personal use of the envelopes was made, given that interfering with mail is a criminal offence. ****** Grizedale/Pendle students Rumours abound in the student body that finalists resident in Pendle and Grizedale Colleges are to be given a 5% boost to their exam results in order to account for disruption caused by building work on south campus. Whilst readers will recognise the 'pigs might fly' element to this rumour it is indicative of the current feeling held by residents in those colleges that the disruption should be recognised and compensated in some way. Sources close to the residence office have revealed that financial compensation is not being considered because no other institution has refunded money to students in compensation for disruptive building works. ***************************************************** REDUNDANCY POOL Rumours are reaching subtext that the proposed extension to Lake Carter may not now be starting this summer as the squeeze on finances and capital spending grows. But perhaps the necessary funding could still be found if the lake were renamed the 'Redundancy Pool'. Let us explain. Under Lancaster's new redundancy procedures (see http://bit.ly/redundancy), the collective term 'pool' is used to refer to a group of employees 'undertaking ... work or activity that is to cease or diminish and from which those who are to be made redundant will be drawn'. Once such a pool has been judged to exist it will be the task of redundancy selection panels to 'identify those individuals in the pool with the knowledge, skills and qualifications to meet the present and anticipated needs of the University,' using criteria which 'will normally be based on the current and future business needs of the department/faculty/division in relation to that area of activity' - i.e. if you're in the pool, but not so identified, you're in trouble. Sorry, this is a complex process but you need to focus, as your future may depend on it. Since subtext aims only to be of assistance, we suggest using Lake Carter to simplify the identification process. Rather than detailed selection criteria, which can always be subject to legal challenge, let's simply make use of our physical assets, drawing on the excellent precedent set by Judge Covell for the Pendle witches a mere four hundred years ago. Academic and other staff will be taken to the lakeside, bound and thrown in. Those who drown will not be made redundant. It's as simple as that. Those who float to the surface and survive will receive the necessary statutory redundancy pay, of course, and be sent on their way with their P45s. This is a win-win situation for the University. Restructuring and cost cutting can be achieved simultaneously. The former may be a little random but then some would say it's in keeping with a number of the strategic decisions taken recently. Care would of course be taken to ensure that proper class divisions would be maintained - Distinguished Professors would, for example, be thrown in last, thus maximizing the probability that they would be prevented from drowning by gaining support from the large number of bodies already in the water. Tickets sold for the attraction, rather like the attendances at public hangings outside Lancaster Castle, will boost our commercial income and some of this can be used to fund the extension of Lake Carter - sorry, the Redundancy Pool. We enter a virtuous circle, or even a virtuous whirlpool. This scheme will not, of course, be an adequate replacement for the much delayed new swimming pool. But once the spectacle is under way entertainment of an alternative kind will be plentiful. ***************************************************** YOU'RE SO SQUARE You known what it's like: you've been quite happy with your carpet for years, but then you get a new three-piece suite, and suddenly it looks shabby and in need of replacement. Similarly, you all wanted a Learning Zone (well, presumably someone did) and now we're only going to have to change Alexandra Square to match it. Go and look at the square now; for something about 40 years old it's looking pretty good (apart from a few blocks on the steps that are looking a lot less shevelled than they used to). The surrounding architecture might be resolutely brutalist circa 1969, but the square itself has worn rather well. But then imagine it with the El-Zee reclining languorously and colourfully along the north face, and the prospect might feel rather different. Luckily the University has put the refurbishment of the square out to tender, with work to be completed by summer 2010. The three shortlisted landscape architects held a consultation event in the square last month, and their three plans will be on display in the foyer of University House until 5.00 pm tomorrow (Friday). University members can vote for their favourite, contributing to 50% of the final score for each plan - the other 50% coming from a panel of judges including the Vice-Chancellor. We recommend that you go and view the images, but here, for what it's worth, is our own reaction. First, welcome to the world of architectural pitches. It's all 'inspirational images', 'comma-ed space' and 'arrival sequences.' Your brain has to start adjusting to the language, both textual and visual. It's a bit like being in a darkened room - you have to wait till your eyes and brain adjust. Second, you'll have to get past the fact that each of the three companies tendering for the work has each used a different style of presentation, which makes it hard to know how much we're voting for the actual design, and how much for their approach to persuasion. Roughly speaking, number 1 seems to be trying if anything too hard; number 3 seems almost casual; leaving number 2 as baby bear in the eagerness stakes. So, once we've got past all the presentation, what do we see? Firstly, there are the commonalities, presumably largely due to immovable elements in the brief. All of the three designs include a prominent clock, real-time bus information displayed above-ground (a welcome innovation), and a lift down to the underpass, which will be quite a departure, so to speak. All of them replace the arcade canopy on three sides of the square with something more modern, and try to work with the idea of the square as a flexible space where different kinds of event are held, including markets, performances, graduation photos and so on. All of them, inevitably, will result in a tidier square - no more bikes chained round the underpass entrances, for example, and presumably even less posters than at present, which will not help create a sense of cultural liveliness. What about the differences? Well, this is a consultation and subtext wouldn't presume to tell you how to vote. But 1 and 2 both seem to take more seriously than 3 the idea that the underpass is in effect part of the square, that it currently feels like a Tesco's loading bay and needs some serious rethinking and integrating into the overground world. All introduce big planters along the southern edge, but 2 and especially 3 also introduce planters and new trees to the steps. What would they feel like? Well, Option 1 feels rather like a modern museum, with a dramatic angled ramp cutting across the steps from the North Spine Entrance, and oblique triangular skylights set into the ground to help illuminate the underpass in the day and the square at night. Option 2 is the railway station, with a prominent clock tower opposite the entrance to the North Spine and a spray of dramatic canopies, with leaf-shaped roofs and seating, sheltering those crossing from one side of the square to the other. Option 3 is the shopping mall, with bright colours and more organic shapes. The refurbishment will just involve the square itself, and the frontages around it: there are no grand plans to make major changes to the surrounding buildings. (What happened to the idea in the Strategic Plan to knock down the conference centre and create a new 'ceremonial' entrance to the University from Bowland Avenue?) This is likely to be a relief to the leaseholders sited in the square (to whom the refurbishment plans seem to have been a surprise), though some disruption to their business will be inevitable. Whichever design is chosen in the end, prepare for a new influx of builders, and to be greeted in a year or so by a rather different square.
LETTERS Dear subtext, Thanks again for another issue (subtext 54) - very enlightening! Can I just point out though, that the inaugural lectures you mention were probably 'under supported' rather than 'under publicised'. I know that for Stephen Wildman's lecture we did as much publicity as possible - within circulation and notice board restrictions-and my colleagues and I worked hard to get the message out there to as many University staff as possible (LU Text/LU News/FASS events website and alerts/email circulations/posters/personal invitations) as well as to our external contacts (many of whom came). Despite your positive and appreciated feedback about Stephen's excellent lecture, I can't remember seeing any of the subtext team actually there. I think we had a reasonably sized audience and I'm sure the same publicity effort was put in for Michael Kraetke's lecture too. I suppose one thing we didn't try was putting a banner up at the Pointer Roundabout, along with the latest birthday announcements - maybe next time! What I would like to do is thank all our colleagues who supported the Lecture and helped with circulating the information across the University - it's appreciated. I do understand that the summer term especially can be a very busy time with precious few hours in the day. Best, Lauren Proctor, Administrator - Ruskin Research, Ruskin Library and Research Centre [Eds: Similar comments were received from the IAS, and subtext ears were burning. Part of the problem may be that there now seems to be two systems for inaugural lectures: those included in the periodic Ideas Festival, and those organised locally. It is perhaps the latter that are problematic, since there is no central structure to ensure that consistent information is provided across campus to inform those who would like to cross boundaries by attending events well outside their normal sphere. It's another part of the communications problem to which our recent editorial referred. Meanwhile, subtext apologises for any offence caused to those people who worked hard to tell members of the University about both lectures.] ****** Dear subtext, Steve Elliott, Computing ****** Dear subtext, Congratulations to Chris Park on his 22 continuous years on Senate; I only managed 21 (1986-2007 continuously), though I had served two separated 3 year terms before that. I do wonder however if this is a record. The early professors who were titular HoDs may have done longer - John Bevington (1964-??), Stan Hussey and similar - as might people like Keith Morgan. Alan Thomson [Eds: An authoritative reply to Alan's enquiry would be beyond the resources of subtext. Our sense is that there are other contenders for the title of Most Enduring Senator, including Philip Reynolds and John Wakeford, and we are also aware of the tradition that Michael Forster, Registrar, while not a member of the Senate, missed perhaps only one meeting between 1964 and his retirement in 1991.] ****************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical |