|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext issue
66 4 November
2010 ***************************************************** '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, university funding, all staff meeting, the
university in crisis, Alexandra Square, senate report, 1966 and all that,
letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL As
the last issue of subtext was published, the Browne Report had just been
published and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the long feared
package of budgetary cuts for the public sector. Inevitably, therefore, this issue of
subtext is much preoccupied with the question of university funding and what
this portends for the future of higher education as such. For there can be no doubt that the proposed
reforms of university funding do not 'simply' concern finances, but are
predicated on a particular vision of the role, function and purpose of
universities that is by no means uncontroversial. Clearly,
these are worrying times, and in such an uncertain context, it would be good
to think that university managers are doing all that they can to treat staff
in a fair and supportive way. It is
all the more worrying, therefore, that news
continues to reach us of staff being treated poorly and unfairly. One staff member who had been made
redundant was refused consideration for another job that she and UCU
contended was substantially (80%) similar to the one from which she was being
made redundant. Another staff member
has hitherto held an honorary research post in an academic department
alongside her full-time administrative job.
On being made redundant, she has been told that her honorary post will
also be terminated, even though the continuation of the honorary post would
cost the University nothing. Sadly,
these examples seem to be representative of a wider trend, so the
University's unhappy treatment of staff is another melancholy theme running
through this issue. The University
continues to fail to consult over redundancies. And as we report below, its appeal against
a legal judgement that condemned their employment practices was recently
turned down. The University's
behaviour in this affair provoked the UCU to say in a recent bulletin: 'It
appears that the University management is making a determined attempt to
climb to an unenviable top position in the league table for the most lawless
employer in the sector. The employer's behaviour is symptomatic of an
increasingly dogmatic and aggressive approach to change which does little to
encourage constructive relationships with campus unions, including UCU, and
serves to damage the reputation of the University.' In
light of this, it is hardly surprising that staff are
showing are marked reluctance to complete the Wellbeing at Work Survey,
currently underway. At the time of
writing, completion rate for FASS, for instance, is 28%, although this figure
seems to have been artificially boosted by the Faculty Office's 60%. In many academic departments, the
completion rate is well below 28%.
Many academics have said that they feel the exercise to be a cynical
public relations exercise rather than a genuine attempt to address staff
concerns. Given the steady flow of
examples of the University's poor treatment of staff, this is hardly
surprising. If the university were
genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of staff, then treating people
decently would be a good place to start. ***************************************************** NEWS
IN BRIEF Lancaster
Scholarships Admissions
Tutors and others will have received over the summer a message informing them
that the Lancaster scholarships (worth £1000 per year) would in future be
awarded for the first year of study only rather than for all three
years. No explanation of the reason
for this change was given, leading many to assume that it was simply because
the system had become unaffordable.
The scholarships were introduced (along with bursaries) when student
fees were first introduced, and were part of an agreed package whereby
universities would 'give back' some of the fees to students who were
academically gifted (scholarships) or who were from low-income backgrounds
(bursaries). Given the quid pro quo
nature of their relationship with the introduction of fees, it seems morally
questionable to scale these back now while fees have gone up and, indeed, are
likely to go up exponentially. subtext
has learned that the reason for the change is that Lancaster was giving 'too
much' money back to students through the scholarship and bursary schemes
relative to other universities, and more than they were strictly required to
do by the fees legislation. As far as
the university is concerned, part of the purpose of the scholarship scheme
was to attract better qualified students to Lancaster and indeed this has
been achieved to some extent.
Nonetheless, many feel that the university still has to make more
progress, so whether the effective two-thirds reduction in the value of the
scholarship will turn out to have detrimental effects in this respect remains
to be seen. ****** Council
Resignations As
was reported in the last issue of subtext, an academic member of Council
resigned in protest at his being refused permission to raise the issue of the
closure of the Nurse Unit by the 'hands-on' Chair of Council, Pro-Chancellor
Bryan Gray. Now, it seems, a further
member of Council has resigned, although this time a lay rather than an
academic member. Helen Child is Chief
Executive of GTP, which is based at the White Cross Industrial Estate and
also a member of Lancaster Vision, as well as being, until recently, a member
of University Council. People curious
as to the reason for her resignation may well have found an answer in the
Daily Telegraph on the 4th August, which reported: 'Helen Child managed to
dupe police on two occasions by blaming her mother Lucinda when her car was
picked up exceeding the limit by speed cameras. The 44-year-old forged her
mother's signature so the penalty points were endorsed on the dead woman's
licence instead of her own. Fearing
her scam would be discovered, Child accepted a further
speeding offence months later because her mother already had nine
points on her licence. But she was caught out when she tried to use the trick
again last year after jumping a red light and police finally realised that
Lucinda had died in 2002. Child has now been handed a 15-week suspended
prison sentence after admitting perverting the course of justice.' Presumably, Ms Child resigned from Council
to spare the university any further embarrassment. It is well known that at the time of the
university corporate governance reforms, Pro-Chancellor Bryan Gray wanted to
shift the balance of Council members away from academic members in favour of
lay members, in the face of opposition from many who believed that the
governance of the university should remain predominantly in the hands of
academics. Now that the balance has
indeed been shifted, we can only hope that the University will have more luck
in its appointment of new lay members of Council. ****** Employment
Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Judgement
was handed down on 27 October regarding the University's appeal against a
previous employment tribunal decision that it had been in breach of its
statutory obligations to collectively consult with campus union UCU over
redundancies, (see subtext 62). Put simply, the University lost and an
important precedent has now been established which is likely to have wider
implications. The verdict should make salutary reading for our senior
management, particularly those who must have argued in favour of this
ill-conceived (and expensive) course of action. The EAT concluded that it was
not going to interfere with the original Tribunal's award of 60 days salary
for those employees covered by the claim. (The award is a punitive sanction
on the employer, reflecting the seriousness of the breach.) Moreover,
commenting on the original points offered in mitigation by the University,
the EAT agreed with the tribunal that some, if not all of them, could be
categorized under the heading of 'futility'. Not very complimentary, to say
the least. In fact much of the University's approach to this matter seems to
have been erratic, if not bizarre. subtext
understands that having been granted the right to appeal, the University
proceeded to demonstrate its confidence by quickly seeking to offer to
settle. Discussions took place over the summer with the University increasing
its offer but eventually it all foundered on the University's insistence that
there had to be a confidentiality clause governing any statements following
the settlement. Presumably loss of face and adverse publicity were issues
looming large at this point. UCU unsurprisingly rejected such a clause. The
University also argued at the EAT hearing that meeting the current claim as
it stands was going to cost £250k and that this was disproportionate to the
seriousness of the breach. It was an argument which cut no ice, the breach
was serious. To this must now be added the legal costs of a QC and two
solicitors at each of the hearings. It also seems that the University hired
another QC specifically for the settlement talks. Is it too much to hope that
members of Council might throw off their timidity and ask the Vice Chancellor
and his colleagues how much this has cost to date and whether they regard it
as money well spent? The next steps? Presumably, the Court of Appeal. Who
would bet against it? Interested
readers may find the decision by going to http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk
and looking up UKEAT/0278/10. ****** The
Future of Postgraduate Studies subtext has come to hear of a recent session on postgraduate
affairs, convened under the auspices of the Graduate College, at which the
Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of Postgraduate Studies and a GSA officer all
spoke. It is a shame that it was not
better advertised, for it appears that some important points were made about
the future of postgraduate studies at Lancaster and elsewhere. One possible conflict that emerged was
that while a growth of postgraduate student numbers may be a good idea, at a
time when they will not be subject to the same financial pressures as
undergraduate programmes, this may be difficult to achieve in practice given
the scale of debt that first degree graduates will pick up, and also given
the likelihood of reduced research council support for student funding and of
declining rewards from the most recent RAE.
This double whammy could even mean a reduction in postgraduate
research students at a time when the university has committed itself to a
substantial increase. More information
about the event would be welcomed. ****** The
Work Foundation? The
news that the University has recent bought 'The Work Foundation' (a
think-tank based in London that specialises in research and consultancy 'on
work and its future' of which Will Hutton is executive vice chair) has
certainly come out of the blue and has produced many puzzled faces,
especially in the midst of the current financial situation. The Guardian
(22/10/10) reported that the University bought the think-tank as the turmoil
in financial markets have left it with a pension hole
of £26.9 million and insolvent. This is a figure that seems very large for an
organisation that employs just 70 members of staff (accounts as of 2008,
although reported as being 43 in recent newspaper reports). Furthermore, it
is 185 days overdue for providing its financial accounts for the year ending
2009, and its financial accounts for 2008 show an operating loss of £1.77
million. The financial performance of
the Work Foundation stands in marked contrast to that of the university, and
we might well ask how soon the new acquisition will be expected to come into
line. ****** Management
School Screen Links to Africa Rumour
has it that the Management School is planning to install really big screens
in public areas, so that students here can engage in academic discussions
with their fellow students in Lancaster's African outposts. By such
technology Lancaster may one day be able to go one better than the old
British Empire. Not only will we have an empire on which the sun never sets,
but it may be possible to beam sunshine into the Management School 24hrs a
day. Responsible subtext editors worry about the carbon footprint associated
with really big screens. Irresponsible ones think that it sounds quite fun. ****** Correction In
the last issue, we mistakenly reported that Cary Cooper was still
Pro-Vice-Chancellor on the basis of information taken from his LUMS webpage
http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/cary-cooper/ For the sake of his own
wellbeing, we're very glad that Prof Cooper isn't PVC any longer – he was definitely
doing too much! ***************************************************** UNIVERSITY
FUNDING: THE BUDGET AND BROWNE The
combined result of the government's Comprehensive Spending Review, announced
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two weeks ago and the proposals of the
Browne Report on Higher Education is to promise nothing less than a
revolution in the way in which British Higher Education Institutions are to
be funded. What is proposed, however,
is not merely a change in funding mechanism.
As Stefan Collini has commented,
'Essentially, Browne is contending that we should no longer think of higher
education as the provision of a public good, articulated through educational
judgment and largely financed by public funds ... Instead, we should think of
it as a lightly regulated market in which consumer demand, in the form of
student choice, is sovereign in determining what is offered by service
providers (i.e. universities).' What
this will mean in detail and in practice is at this stage impossible to predict,
but there can be no doubt that, even more severely than at present, academics
will have to work within the parameters of a system that will embody ideals
and values far removed from their own. This
revolution is about to be enacted in the absence of any significant public
debate. Why is this? Part of the answer lies in the fact that
the government has effectively pre-empted all debate by the announcement of
the content of its Comprehensive Spending Review as a fait accompli. As far as the implications for universities
are concerned, the results are drastic.
About the only glimmer of light lies in that fact that funding for
science and research will effectively be maintained. This was a better than expected result, and
shows how effective were the arguments deployed and pressure exerted by the
scientific community. Images of
British science in disarray and the prospect of a huge brain drain clearly
hit home. It is teaching that has
taken an enormous hit; few had predicted that all state funding for teaching
would be ended with the exception of the STEM subjects. Already, with this partial exemption, we
begin to see the ideological elements of reform at work, and here there is a
direct continuity with the policy contained in Mandelson's
'Higher Ambitions' document. We well
recall that the STEM subjects were to be promoted because of their perceived
'usefulness' to and 'impact' upon the wider economy and society. The
result is a gaping hole in university finances, and it is in this sense that
the government has pre-empted all debate.
It has left universities with little choice but to accept the general
thrust of Browne's reforms. Without them, how else would the gaping hole be filled? Indeed,
this is well expressed by the careful and guarded wording of the letter sent
by the Leicester Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Burgess, to his academic staff
last week: 'The Comprehensive Spending Review outlines cuts that will impact
on the higher education sector, while the Browne report provides a solution to
filling the funding gap. There are no
other solutions proposed. The
University therefore supports the Browne report...' The Browne Report clearly
envisaged an unrestrained market system, a large-scale increase in the level
of student fees, and the removal of any statutory upper-level cap. While
universities and Browne had clearly been operating on the assumption that
public funding would be cut (the Mandelson document
made perfectly clear that this would be so), few expected that the cut in
teaching funding would be as drastic as it has turned out to be. What this means is that universities would
effectively be forced to double their fees at least simply in order to
preserve their current financial position, without delivering the increase in
resource and long-term stability that they had hoped such an increase in fees
would bring. In order to achieve such
long-term stability, it has become clear that universities would have to
charge triple the amount of current fees, although this is clearly contingent
on what the market would support, and this is not a route that will be open
to all universities. Since
the publication of Browne, the government moved away from the idea of there
being no upper limit on fees and the unrestrained market that this would entail. Yesterday, it was announced that fees would
be raised to £6000 with an upper cap of £9000. Last weekend's newspapers said that an
initial proposal for a fee cap of £7000 had been rejected after several
universities threatened to go private if that were enacted, given that it
would not allow them to make any advance on their current financial
position. Charging fees of £9000 per
year would allow universities to improve on this but in order to do it, they
will need to demonstrate that they are providing a 'public benefit' relating
to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. All
this is bound to alter the shape and content of the entire university
sector. In particular, the future of
the arts, humanities and social sciences is perilous. We have already noted that they have been
deprived of the teaching funding protection offered to the STEM
subjects. Furthermore, there is a
question mark over what will happen to the protected funding for 'science and
research.' The very term is an
indication of where the prioritising is likely to fall. The Mandelson
document proposed allocating research funding in such a way as to favour
those disciplines that could demonstrate an 'impact' on the economy and
society, and this principle was re-affirmed by David Willetts
in a recent speech to HEFCE. All of
this makes the future for the humanities in particular look distinctly
threatening. More threatening still
would have been the prospect of the operation of an internal market within
individual universities, such that there would have been different fees for
different subjects. But as Lancaster's
Vice-Chancellor pointed out in a recent filmed discussion, this was not in
fact proposed by Browne and we can only hope that this is not a direction in
which most universities will want to move. What
the implications will be for Lancaster in particular is likewise difficult to
specify. As with A-level course
offers, the level of fees in a market system will be a 'status symbol' with
the result that prestigious universities will want to signal their quality by
charging as high as they are able to go.
On the other hand, they will have to be careful not to charge at a
level that will put off prospective applicants. Lancaster will be likely to feel this
dilemma particularly keenly. On the
one hand, it wants to preserve and enhance its reputation as a leading ('top
ten') national university. But on the
other hand, it has not yet completed its ongoing transition from being a
'recruiting' to a 'selective' university in admissions terms. Furthermore, its students are in general
not drawn from a particularly wealthy constituency. Lancaster's financial position would seem
to be secure, and, if it is able to charge at a higher level, may even be
improved. But as with the sector as a
whole, what impact the new regime will have on the shape and content of what
goes on here remains not only unclear but ominously so. ***************************************************** ALL
STAFF MEETING The
Great Hall was filled to capacity by 12.00 on Tuesday (2 November), as
university members flocked to hear what the Vice-Chancellor was going to say
about how the University might respond to the impending funding squeeze
imposed by the Comprehensive Spending Review.
subtext scribes were planted at strategic
points in the audience streaming into the hall, ready to use their advanced
shorthand skills (body language version) to record the mood of the audience,
as well as to try to detect and record any substantive information that might
accidentally slip out during the V-C's talk and the following
question-and-answer session. As a
performance it was at once assured and curiously detached, as if delivered
through a pleasant, Prozac-induced haze.
There was no fulmination at the reckless destruction that is about to
be unleashed on higher education in the United Kingdom. There was no sense that Professor Wellings has been no passive reader of the political
runes but an active player in national debates about the future of
universities. There was no articulation
of a personal vision for the University behind which we might rally to help
us battle through the difficult years ahead.
Even when talking about what the University might do, it rather felt
like he was reporting this as an outside observer, as if in a curiously
dissociative state. Nevertheless,
at least Professor Wellings' mastery of the
financial details of Lancaster University PLC remains undimmed. He gave a helpful summary of the
implications of the Browne Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review. He then showed graphs and charts which
underscored his message that Lancaster at least enters the choppy waters
ahead with a healthy financial situation and rejuvenated campus facilities. And he finally turned to the implications
for Lancaster of the freezing of research expenditure (HEFCE R and research
councils) and the withdrawal of teaching subsidy (HEFCE T) – a modelling of
which projected a loss of annual income rising to £17.5m by 2013-14. The
assumption was clearly that we would have to raise our Home/EU undergraduate
fees to around the £6k mark to reduce that income shortfall to something
manageable without a massive slimming down of the University (see Powerpoint slides at
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/vc/planning/uploads/vcpresnov2010.pptx). The
following discussion raised more questions than it answered. What will happen to the cap on student
numbers? Will research funding also
favour STEM subjects? Will we end up
charging different fees for different subjects? Will we still support departments if
student demand for their courses plummets in this more marketised
environment? Clear answers were few
and far between. To be fair, much of
this is simply because the government hasn't yet announced all the details of
how the new system will work. And
besides, as Professor Wellings made clear, the
answer to many of these questions will depend on how
the University as a corporate body decides it wants to react to the new
framework. But when asked about the
process whereby the University will make these decisions, and how ordinary
university members can have a say, the Vice-Chancellor listed the 'ordinary'
mechanisms of PRCs, Deans, the Finance Committee and ultimately Council. Yet the changes ahead are potentially so
radical in their implications that such routine decision-making channels seem
far from adequate. Do not
extraordinary times call for extraordinary - and more inclusive - forms of
decision-making? ***************************************************** THE
UNIVERSITY IN CRISIS On the
early evening of Monday 25 October, the Marcus Merriman Lecture Theatre in Bowland North was full to bursting with people who had
come to participate in the first lecture-discussion in the series 'The
University In Crisis'. These events are being organised by a group of
students, teaching assistants and part time staff at the University who say
they are concerned about the lack of resistance to the marketisation
of higher education and want to stimulate debate. To
an audience which included undergraduates, postgraduates, academic and
support staff - and the occasional dean - Distinguished Professor Bob Jessop
of Sociology kicked off the series in fine style with a comprehensive
overview. He distinguished between a
number of interlocking crises - crises in the university system, crises in
specific universities and crises in the university as an institution. Echoing
Naomi Klein's notion of 'disaster capitalism', he also pointed out that
'crisis' is also often used strategically as a steering mechanism - and one
which the university as we know it might not survive. (As one US major
infamously said during the Vietnam war, 'it became necessary to destroy the
town to save it'.) The
touchstone of Jessop's talk was the notion of the university as an
institution - an autonomous, self-governing community of scholars and
teachers, one which certifies achievement and supports research according to
prevailing standards. Crucial to this idea of the university is that the
community itself sets the 'primary codes' by which it determines what counts
as educational achievement and good research. Jessop
then gave the audience some historical context by describing some of the
crises and transformations undergone by higher education since the 1950s -
ably supported by many references to Marion McClintock's history of
Lancaster's early years, Quest for Innovation (1974). Crucial here was the
rise of mass higher education, as the university system was expanded and
recalibrated to produce certified labour for the Fordist
production economy and later to run the new welfare state. The current
attempt to transform the university system has been in the context of the
rise of the vision of the knowledge-based economy - in Europe, through the
Lisbon Agenda and the Bologna process - and involves higher education being
'modernised' and integrated more closely with wealth creation. Jessop
discussed how the seemingly inexorable shift towards 'for-profit'
universities and an emphasis on knowledge transfer can be seen as a
displacement of the 'primary codes' of the university as an autonomous
community by the very different codes of the capitalist economy. But he also
drew attention to the central contradiction of this vision: the tension
between the communal nature of knowledge as a non-rival good and the desire
to privatise and commodify it. He also warned of
the way that governing the university through market choice, surveillance,
incentives and disciplinary mechanisms can produce perverse outcomes and
destroy collegiality. The lecture prompted heated debate about how
alternative visions for the university as an institution might be kept open. The
next lecture is on 18 November with Maureen McNeil - and might be in a larger
lecture theatre in order better to accommodate all of those who seem to share
the concerns of the organisers. For
more details, join the Facebook group at http://on.fb.me/unicrisis or email universityincrisis@hotmail.com. ***************************************************** ALEXANDRA
SQUARE subtext has occasionally reflected on the question of
how the University treats retail and service businesses that operate on
campus, focusing mainly on the issue of how rents are set for these valued
members of the University community (see subtexts 36 and 40). As we reported at the time, these
businesses generally have very light trade during vacations; this is the
other side of the coin of having captive trade during term time. But
businesses in Alexandra Square - Robinson's Newsagents, Greggs, His &
Hers Hair Salon, The Green Room (florists), Natwest
and Barclay's Banks, Uni-Travel, Waterstones and the Post Office - are now suffering
problems of a different magnitude, and it is far from clear that the
University is taking them seriously enough. Many
traders are reporting that this summer vacation has been their quietest yet,
blaming the disruption caused by the Alexandra Square Window Replacement
Project and the Alexandra Square Rejuvenation Project. Scaffolding and fencing have kept
activities in the Square to a bare minimum over the last few months, and have
kept many people away from the Square - and now, worryingly, this pattern
seems to be persisting into term time. The
closing off of the Underpass as part of the Alexandra Square Rejuvenation
Project has also added to the downturn in trade. Usually, anyone arriving at
or leaving campus by bus has to pass through Alexandra Square, which
increases their likelihood of making purchases. At the moment, people arriving on campus
are alighting at one of the stops on the perimeter road and dispersing to
different parts of the campus without going near the Square. A
meeting organised by Facilities on 19 October was seen by the traders as an
opportunity to explain their concerns about lost income, security, safety and
general disruption due to the way the works are being carried out. However, it sounds like communication at
the meeting was decidedly one-way in character, with University officers
showing little interest in hearing about the problems being faced by the
traders, let alone offering any compensation. This impression was not helped
by the sight of the Marketing and Communications Officer from Facilities
tapping her watch impatiently to signal to the Senior Project Manager to wind
up the meeting while the leaseholders were in the middle of explaining their
concerns. The
next phase of work in the Square involves taking up the existing flagstones,
preparing the bridge deck underneath, and constructing new paving. It had
been agreed that this work would commence at the west end of the Square, in
front of University house, so that work at the busy east end, in front of
Robinson's Newsagents, Greggs, His & Hers, The Green Room and Natwest Bank, could be carried out during the Christmas
vacation, when business is quiet. But
it has now been announced that work is now due to start imminently at the
east end, with no reasons given to traders. The
contractors, William Pye, have promised to carry
out the work in the evenings, to minimise disruption to the businesses. But traders are deeply unhappy about the
way the whole affair has been handled, and some are seriously wondering
whether they want to stay where they don't feel wanted. ***************************************************** SENATE
REPORT Despite
the grim economic situation and the alarming outlook for the future of HE, the VC was in a jaunty mood as he welcomed senators to
the first meeting of the academic year (13th October). There was still some
good news to report: Lancaster's finances were sound, we had again achieved
our 4+% surplus target, and recruitment was buoyant. Less happily, the
recently-published Browne review implied a reduction of £1bn in HE spending
which for Lancaster would mean a recurrent annual cut of £2m.* We needed to
see what the coalition government's spending review would bring but, in the
words of REM's 1987 hit, it was 'The end of the world as we know it'. The
quip now going round among VCs, he reported, was that in future there would
be no 'F' in HEFCE as there would be no funds! (No effin'
HEFCE , now there's a thought). A
wide range of questions from senators brought further information: cuts in
teaching income would be synchronised with introduction of increased students
fees (although as the V-C pointed out in the All Staff Meeting, there is one
year in which they will be asynchronous), legislation to implement Browne
would be in April 2011, increased fee levels (whatever they were going to be)
would come into effect with the 2012 intake, so that at least we can assure
this year's prospective students it would be business as usual for next year.
Research funding would favour science and technology areas and would be more
directed than in the past. Lancaster was better placed than other HEIs in the
NW to withstand funding cuts, though other institutions with heavy reliance
on teacher and nurse training contracts would be badly affected. In all,
there was more engagement in this one part of the agenda than for some entire
Senate meetings in the recent past. It
may have been their preoccupation with these weighty issues that caused
senators, when it came to the next item, to fail to spot that they were being
asked to surrender yet more of their authority. The item in question was
Senate recommendation to Council of the appointment of Professor Steve
Bradley to the new post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor International. Straightforward
in itself (Senate was very happy to make the recommendation) but tacked on
was a proposal from the University Secretary that Senate delegates its
authority for future senior officer appointments to Appointing Committees.
Subtext readers may recall that almost exactly a year ago the procedure for
senior officer appointments (PVCs, Deans, College Principals) was changed to
remove the right of Senate to elect representatives to Appointing Committees,
and instead to give to the VC and Director of HR the power to select Senate
members to serve on the appointing panels. These reps would not be able to
canvass views or report back to Senate in any way but, we had been reassured,
Senate would still have the final say in any senior appointment. This was now
to be removed. In vain was it pointed out by one senator that this power was
enshrined in Ordinances and cannot simply be given away by Senate but his was
a lone voice. The proposal was passed, with only a
handful voting against and a much larger number not voting at all. The
next substantive item provided a glimpse of Lancaster in the Browne/Osborne
world. Senate was asked to comment on two reports from the Financial
Sustainability and Academic Regeneration working groups. These had been set
up by the VC in March (before the general election) to look at options for
the university in the new financial and funding climate. The financial report stressed the need to
reduce the University's cost base. Among the measures under consideration
were job cuts, pay freezes, pay cuts, suspending promotions, compulsory
unpaid leave, withdrawal from national pay bargaining and –horror of horrors
– suspending performance pay bonuses. Mr. Thornberry (Bowland
College) wanted to know why, with all these extraordinary measures being contemplated, the University was still sticking to the 4+%
annual surplus target. Professor Pidd (Management
Science) was in favour of maintaining the surplus but thought it needed to be
explained to staff (especially, one must suppose, those staff who would be
losing their jobs in order to protect the surplus). Professor Sayer (History) thought it would be no bad thing to
withdraw from the national pay framework, though the VC seemed rather less
convinced. The
report on academic regeneration was a much more low-key document, with
recommendations on academic staff recruitment and retention, probation and
academic titles. The key message,
however, was on the need for Lancaster to maintain a broad subject
provision. Dr. Naguib
(PPR) asked how this would be achieved, and in particular, what would be done
for subjects under pressure. This drew the mysterious response that whatever
needed to be done would be done 'cautiously'. Professor Pidd,
supported by Professor Cox (LUMS), wanted academic staff probation extended
to five years instead of the two years proposed in the report and was
reminded by the Director of HR that employment law made this somewhat
problematic. Professor May (PPR) referred to the proposal to extend the term
of office of HoDs to four years and pointed to the
need to have in place a much more robust system of support for the individual
in that role. The
final item was a report on the National Student Survey results where Lancaster
scored well but, on closer inspection, showed that in some key areas we
lagged behind other institutions in the 94 Group. Those areas would be looked
at closely. Achieving high rates of student satisfaction had to be a central
issue for the University, especially, as one LUSU representative pointed out, they would soon be paying double the current fees. *
Though he gave an even more gloomy prediction in the All Staff Meeting on 2
November - see report above. ***************************************************** 1966
AND ALL THAT - CHAPTER EIGHT David
O'Dell was amongst the first students to study at the newly-founded
University of Lancaster. Here we continue his story - as he remembers it. Year
3, Michaelmas Term 1968: Look upon my works, ye
mighty, and despair * Pass the summer
working for Kodak at its processing plant in Hemel Hempstead. I spend eight
hours a day between 8.00 and 5.00 in total darkness with 160 other people to
the sound of compressed air and the screams of the more recently trained as
they weld their fingers to rolls of film, but it's worth £14.10 a week. When
demand slackens, women are set to 'winter work', packing contraceptives in
the 'Johnny Room', from which all men are barred. * This year Mike, Dick
and myself are sharing a four storey, late 18th century, terrace house on the
edge of the Trough of Bowland with the River Wyre
running past the bottom of the garden. It is certainly a step up from the
digs in Dallam Avenue where Mike and I spent our first
year. The rent is a hefty £8 a week, but it is shared between the three of us
and is worth it. Our luck in securing the house is completely unconnected
with the fact that, as the SRC Internal Vice Chairman, Mike had first sight
of all property available for student renting. * The University
is now enormous: 750 new students have been admitted this year, taking the
total to 1,750. And with the opening of new residences in Bowland
and Cartmel there are undergraduates living on
campus for the first time. An early issue is the lack of curtains. The Vice
President of Cartmel is deputed to 'Windowlene' all the windows of the girls' rooms to ensure
that their modesty is protected. The
men must make do as best they can. * Having a room at Bailrigg has both advantages and disadvantages,
especially if your parents live locally.
Jim is a first year student and member of the Hockey Club whose family
invite themselves to tea in his Cartmel ground
floor room every Sunday afternoon – and every Sunday afternoon members of the
Hockey Club make a point of knocking on his window and waving a cheery
'hello' to increase his embarrassment. * Although some of the
buildings the University hired in Lancaster initially are still in use, the
centre of student life is now Bailrigg. However,
there is already a certain nostalgia for the 'good old days' at St Leonardsgate and I still try to drop in to the JCR from
time-to-time to chat to Hetty, a woman never short
of an opinion, who has become a particular friend and is who is intent on
'feeding me up', as she puts it. * Early on in the
term, the topping-out of County's new building is marked with proper
ceremony. The JCR Committee is invited to witness the occasion first hand
while the rest of the JCR have to look on from below. After nine months as
President I am starting to think that this is as it should be. * Meanwhile, no stone is
being left unturned, or glass undrained, in the
search to ensure that County's bar will be the envy of all other
colleges. Boddingtons are the latest
brewers to treat us to lunch and drinks in the hope of securing this
glittering prize. * Our house in Dolphinholme has character. It is also 3 1/2 miles from Bailrigg. To get in and out I have the choice of getting
a lift, cycling or walking. Lifts into the University are fine, as long as
Mike and Dick can be persuaded to get out of bed, but getting back is more of
a problem. I actually walk a couple of times, but my new bike proves to be a
godsend, except on the occasion when, possibly slightly under the influence,
I cycle straight into a drainage ditch near the Fleece Inn. But it was dark
and there was a head wind. Inevitably, I spend quite a few nights sleeping on
other people's floors at Bailrigg, and, on one grim
occasion, in the County Office itself. * There are no
Politics lectures in the third year and all courses are delivered though
seminars. There are only six of us
taking Professor Reynolds' course on International Relations Theory. We have
one three hour session a week and each of us takes it in turn to present an
essay for discussion and criticism. It takes a bit of getting used to, but in
the end we find we can fill the time with ease. * The Economics
course is allocated five hours of computer time. Five hours between all the
students taking the course, that is. The University computer itself is a
building with people inside it wearing white coats, so we are also taught to
use complex calculating machines with a handle on the side and strange
knobs. Mine drop off. * The Hockey Club 2nd XI has a good term,
winning ten games and losing five, although whenever I am captain the result
seems to be a moral victory rather than actual one. * The game against
Keele is a close one which we lose 3-4. Being on the M6, and within travelling distance
of everywhere, we come across teams from all over the country when we play
there. On this occasion, 80 Lancastrians from various sports clubs spend the
night in the Union bar with teams from as far afield as Aberystwyth and
Birmingham. After an enjoyable evening, we leave at 12.30 and get home at
3.00 a.m. only to discover that we have left the 1st XI captain behind. He
gets in at 9.00 on Sunday morning having spent 7 1/2 hours hitching up the
M6. * In mid-November
both XIs head off over the Pennines to play Durham and Newcastle on
successive days. Result: four games played, four games lost. Goals for, 1,
goals against, 20, but we do hear Fairport Convention play the Newcastle
Union. * Wherever we play, we
always try to listen to the football results on Sports Report at 5.00 p.m on a Saturday night. Inevitably interest wanes as the
outcomes of matches in the lower divisions are read out. Equally inevitably,
at about 5.06 p.m. every Saturday, when everyone else's mind has turned to
finding someone to buy the first round, a lone, but distinctive, voice breaks
through the negotiations as the Raith Rovers score
is announced. The standing joke is
that Jim McClaren thought that his team's name was
'Raith Rovers Nil' for the first ten years of his
life. * Christmas, and the end
of office, now beckons. I won't miss the interminable meetings - one mid-week
Syndicate meeting was adjourned until the next Sunday evening after only
three hours because we had only reached item 5 on the agenda - but I will
miss being at the centre of things. * One of my final
acts as JCR President is to show the Chancellor, Princess Alexandra, and her
lady-in-waiting, around Bailrigg before the higher
degree Congregation. The other four presidents are also in the party but I am
in the photos. * Both the
Chancellor and her lady-in-waiting prove to be charming and chat away over
lunch in the Senate Chamber. When coffee is served, the men are offered
cigars. Annie rightly objects and she too is given a large Cuban to puff on.
The wine flows freely and we only just make it down into Lancaster in time to
lead the procession into the Town Hall. * All of a sudden
last meetings are held, last visitors shown around the campus and last
dinners and last parties attended. The Federation AGM agrees to give the next
Federation Chairman a sabbatical. I hope Mr Westacott
is grateful. Over 100 attend the Second County College Dinner. I am thanked,
I thank everybody else and the County College Gentlemen's Vocal Ensemble
gives another rousing rendition of the College Song which won last summer's Neurovision Song Contest. * And then it's
all over. Farewell the neighing steed, and the shrill trump, the
spirit-stirring drum, th' ear-piercing fife; The
royal banner, and all quality, pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war!
Shakespeare always had a word, or 27, for it. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear
subtext, Your
correspondent Professor Busch is right to be worried. But he has missed the sinister aspect of
the Faraday Window Project, which will be immediately evident to a physicist.
The objective is clearly to construct around the building a Faraday Cage
(invented by Michael Faraday in 1836). The function of such a cage is to make
all events (electromagnetic activity) inside the cage to be completely
isolated from events outside. So one must suspect that the project is a
precursor to a grand social experiment like the Big Brother House. I wonder
whose dark mind is behind it all, and whether occupants can truly see through
these windows? Tony
Guénault PS A
little more on Faraday, effectively the inventor of electromagnetism. When
asked in 1850 by Gladstone (then the George Osborne figure) what was the practical value of all this electricity stuff,
Faraday answered 'One day, sir, you may tax it.' ****** Dear
subtext, When
reading successive issues of subtext, I had until now thought your style
provided a welcome relief from that of the usual turgid texts so often facing
us these days. Accordingly, I was shocked by your reference to '.....the
relatively high proportion of international staff and students at the
university.' Have you ever met an international student? That use of the word
'international' (possibly due to nervousness about using the words 'foreign'
or 'overseas') is a classic example of how a shift in usage is an obstacle to
clear communication - for example, does 'an international company' mean a
company with bases in several countries, or just a foreign company? Regards, Hubert
Pollock [We are
very sorry to hear that subtext has inadvertently contributed to the process
of linguistic obfuscation which, like you, we deplore. In mitigation, we might just say that the
term 'international' was a THE rather than a subtext term, and got picked up by
us in the context of discussing the THE article on
rankings. - eds.] ***************************************************** The
editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order)
of: Noel Cass, Rachel Cooper (Philosophy), Catherine Fritz, George Green,
Gavin Hyman, Peter Morris, David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden.***************************************************** The
editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order)
of: Noel Cass, Rachel Cooper (Philosophy), Catherine Fritz, George Green,
Gavin Hyman, Peter Morris, David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden. |