|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext issue
67 18
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, the national demonstration, the march and the
media, Browne review continued, Lancaster's foreign adventures, 1966 and all
that, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL In
advance of last Wednesday's demonstration against the impending restructuring
of higher education, Lancaster's Vice Chancellor Paul Wellings
warned in a Guardian article that the rally could be an occasion for '[o]verblown rhetoric [that] distorts debate, perpetuates
myths, and stokes unwarranted fear'.
Speaking on behalf of the 1994 Group of universities, Professor Wellings reiterated his well-known support for the
current proposals to reform the higher educational system, suggesting that
the raised tuition fees would more than fill the funding gap left by the
Comprehensive Spending Review, and thus maintain and even improve
standards. He rejected any equation
between graduate contribution and debt, insisting that 'no one will be barred
from study based on ability to pay', and called for 'constructive debate'
rather than 'grandstanding gestures' such as marches (let alone, one
presumes, direct action) (http://bit.ly/wellings
- see also comments from online readers beneath the article). subtext
welcomes Professor Wellings' call for 'constructive
debate' - though his warning that 'shrill cries' about impending student debt
will deter many from applying to university seems more like a call for a
self-imposed gagging order on critics.
But we suspect that this will not happen without more collective
expressions of public disquiet like that which occurred in London last
Wednesday. Below, we give our own
report on the demonstration and its aftermath, and reproduce a critique of
the media reporting of this significant political event. We
also disagree with the terms on which the Vice-Chancellor seems to feel that
this debate should proceed – as if what is at stake were simply a practical
issue about university funding, rather than the very nature of the university
as an institution. In a continuation
of last issue's discussion of the Browne Review into Higher Education Funding
and Student Finance, we look at some of the evolving public-sphere discussion
of the Browne Review and its implications, which suggests that the planned
change in the funding structure of higher education is likely to have
far-reaching effects. However,
marches and media punditry may be necessary, but they are not
sufficient. We welcome the fact that
many groups, at Lancaster and elsewhere, are organising events at which the
proposed changes and their implications can be discussed in an open and free
way, and at which different possible responses can be debated. It would be very 'constructive' indeed if
our own university were to create such a process, in which members of the
university community could feel genuinely involved in formulating a
collective response to the challenges that have been laid in front of
us. We look forward to hearing from
Professor Wellings what forum he might have in mind
for constructive debate at Lancaster. ***************************************************** NEWS
IN BRIEF University
in Crisis The
second in the series of talks on 'The University in Crisis', organised by a
group of students, teaching assistants and part time staff, will be held this
afternoon (Thursday) at 5 pm in the Marcus Merriman Lecture Theatre, Bowland North.
Maureen McNeil (Sociology) will be giving a talk called 'From
Gentlemen's Clubs to Entrepreneurial Hubs to ... ?' ****** Lancaster
and Morecambe Against the Cuts Also
being held today (Thursday) is a public meeting in the Ashton Hall at
Lancaster Town Hall, organised by the local group Lancaster and Morecambe
Against the Cuts. LMATC (http://www.lmatc.org.uk) describes its
aim as building support for and between all those fighting against cuts in
the public sector. The meeting,
commencing at 7.30 pm, will include speakers from the worlds of politics, the
arts and media, the sciences and academia and from community campaigns and
trades unions. Students will also be
giving eye-witness accounts of their experiences in London on 10 November,
including what really happened at Millbank Tower. ****** News
from elsewhere subtext readers who want to keep informed of what is
happening at other universities in terms of cuts and redundancies might want
to follow this link: http://www.stopthecuts.net/overview. ****** Campaign
for the Public University Just
before going to press subtext hears of a UK Campaign for the Public
University that is being established by university teachers and graduate
students. It describes itself as 'a
broad-based campaign with no party or other political affiliation,
... seeking to defend and promote the idea of the university as a
public good'. They argue 'that the
public university is essential both for cultivating democratic public life
and creating the means for individuals to find fulfilment in creative and
intellectual pursuits regardless of whether or not they pursue a degree
programme'. They are currently
organising a letter-writing campaign to Russell Group VCs in protest against
their lack of criticism of the higher education cuts. You can subscribe at http://bit.ly/publicuniversity and
access details of the letter campaign at http://bit.ly/russellgroup. ****** Campaign
for the free university? subtext readers may have heard that there were plans to
establish an 'education camp' in Parliament Square during last Wednesday's
demonstration in London. The idea was
to create a space for 'free public lectures and open discussion about
proactive alternatives for higher education'.
We're not sure exactly what happened in the end, but it looks like the
idea of setting up non-commodified university-like
spaces could be a growing form of protest against the Browne plans. Academics and art activists have founded the
Free University of Liverpool, which plans to run a three-year BA in Cultural
Praxis from October 2011. They are
requesting academics and artists to donate time and teaching materials to
make this a reality - see http://thefreeuniversityofliverpool.wordpress.com/. ***************************************************** 10
NOVEMBER – THE NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION You
know how it happens. A bunch of people
go down to Westminster to express their ideas, full of hope and not a little
idealism. They're well-meaning,
perhaps a little naïve, perhaps a little too easily swayed by those around
them. So, lo and behold, they fall in
with a bad crowd around Conservative Party HQ, start to get a giddy sense of
power, and before they know it they're destroying things, left, right and
centre. The next day, of course, they
wake up with a hangover of regret: in the cold light of day the destruction
looks merely gratuitous, everyone's disowning them,
their justifications just sound hollow.
What had they been thinking?
But it's too late: they're in a coalition government with the Tories,
helping to justify massive, ideologically driven cuts in public spending with
no clear electoral mandate - and the country is getting restive as people
start to see exactly what is in store. Yes,
the Liberal Democrats were as much the target of anger as the Conservatives
at last Wednesday's demo in London.
20,000 were expected, but at least 50,000 people turned up on this
cold but sunny day - ideal demonstration weather. Despite the Vice-Chancellor's Guardian
article (see editorial and letters), Lancaster itself was well represented,
with reports that it had the highest turnout from any university in the
Northwest. At 4:30 am, bleary-eyed students
and a handful of even more bleary-eyed lecturers gathered outside the
Chaplaincy Centre for their slow, stately coach journeys to the sinful city
of the south (many other Lancaster academics had made their own, quicker ways
to the capital). The
coach-borne Lancaster contingent was almost too late.
Central London had become gridlocked and it took almost as long to get
into London as it had done to cross the plains of the North and the
Midlands. But they took their place at
the back of the procession with other late-comers from Manchester, Sheffield,
Southampton and Leeds. Contrary
to media reports, this was not only a 'student' demonstration. The event turned out to be a useful
occasion for meeting academic colleagues from all over the country - at times, the atmosphere was rather like a more boisterous
version of an academic conference.
There were angry chants and unrepeatable placards, but also good
humour, solidarity, and extraordinary amounts of youthful energy. Samba bands, gaily coloured costumes and
banners, giant puppets and fireworks helped to make the occasion enjoyable
and upbeat. But
the participants were also clearly united by an urgent sense of purpose. And, also contrary to media reports, this
was not just a protest by the squeezed middle classes against a 'rise in
fees'. As the banners, leaflets and
chants made clear, many were protesting against what is perceived to embody
the final nail in the coffin for the ideal of education as a 'public good',
and its replacement by a market-driven model of education as an 'output' to
serve the economy. Thus, there were
many FE students from disadvantaged areas protesting about the withdrawal of
EMA (means tested support for post-16 education), lecturers making a
last-ditch attempt to save the ideals to which they've devoted their lives,
reportedly 1,000 students from Scotland who won't even be affected by the fee
rises, many defences of the arts and humanities, and many students with signs
rejecting the idea that they are merely consumers. Some hand-written placards were veritable
essays, and ones that were often in danger of going over the word limit. There could be little doubt that this was a
serious political event. By
the time they had made their way to Westminster, word was filtering through
of the occupation of Conservative HQ at 30 Millbank,
and the crowds of latecomers were being asked to disperse by march
stewards. The closest most of the
Lancaster contingent got to the violence was seeing it on news screens in
nearby pubs. But already, the coverage
appeared slanted. Windows
were indeed smashed, police and protestors were injured, things were thrown
and 56 people were arrested. But
reports suggest that the first protestors to arrive at the building wandered
in peacefully, with no clear plan, and were ushered out by security
guards. Hundreds of protestors then
gathered outside the building, made a bonfire of placards and chanted. Some of these then broke into the building
and occupied the roof. A handful did
throw objects off the roof, including a spent fire-extinguisher which could
easily have killed someone. But these
seemed to be exceptions, and the perpetrators were firmly censured with
chants of 'don't throw shit' from the otherwise supportive gathered
crowd. There were also other breakaway
protests, such as a sit-down strike outside Parliament and another protest
outside the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (Incidentally,
according to Scotland Yard, only 225 officers were initially fielded to
police the demo, and reports suggest that some of the policing at
Conservative Headquarters was a bit half-hearted. Some speculated whether the police hadn't
underprepared on purpose, to call attention to their own cuts - surely not.) Such
nuances scarcely appeared in the media reporting – neither were there many
images of the vast peaceful crowds, or any whatever of the speeches made by
the NUS President, the UCU General Secretary and the TUC Deputy General
Secretary. And the misleading nature
of the live BBC coverage was also evident in the report on the 10pm news that
night, prompting one Lancaster academic demonstrator to complain to the BBC
(see below). Other sections of the
media seemed to follow a similar line, and the tabloids were true to form –
the next day's Daily Mail headline sums it up: 'HIJACKING OF A VERY MIDDLE
CLASS PROTEST: Anarchists spark violence as 50,000 take to streets over
student fees'. The
NUS and UCU leadership were quick to condemn the occupation. However, others have been unhappy to disown
all the occupiers as violent hooligans.
The President and Secretary of the UCU branch at Goldsmiths University
of London provoked the ire of the government by praising the occupation and
criticising the official USU and NUS position. Others are registering their support for
the occupiers by joining a Facebook group or
signing a petition (http://teneleventen.wordpress.com/supporters/). Whatever one's views on this, it is
disturbing that the academics at Goldsmiths are reportedly being threatened
with 'discipline' for supporting political violence. Given that political theorists have been
arguing in support of such violence in articles and books for years, are they
too to be disciplined for the contents of their
publications? The implications for
academic freedom are deeply worrying; indeed fear of the restrictions on
academic freedom that might flow from the new consumer model of HE was one of
the very things the protesters were challenging. Some
media coverage managed to see the bigger implications in Wednesday's
events. John Harris said in the
Guardian, 'What happened on Wednesday afternoon was not some meaningless
rent-a-mob flare-up, nor an easily-ignored howl of indignation from some of
society's more privileged citizens. It was an early sign of people growing
anxious and restless, and what a government pledged to such drastic plans
should increasingly expect' (http://bit.ly/johnharris). There
was little sign of violence on the coaches as the Lancaster marchers made
their slow progress back North.
Student opinion on at least one of the coaches seemed to be generally
against the violence, and many felt let down by what they had seen on the
screens, and a few had glimpsed in person.
As they put behind them the rigours of the day, they settled down in
their seats and played a distinctly non-violent game of 'Harry Potter
Trumps'. ***************************************************** THE
MARCH AND THE MEDIA [This
critique of the BBC's coverage of the demonstration was posted on the BBC
website by Lancaster's Norman Fairclough at http://bbc.in/fairclough.] 'The
coverage of the demonstration on BBC1 10pm News yesterday (10 November) was
appalling. First, the demonstration was depicted as a student demonstration
when in fact it was a demonstration by the National Union of Students plus
the staff union UCU. 'Second,
the demonstration was depicted as about student fees whereas it actually
voiced concerns about the Government's overall strategy towards universities
and various aspects of its plans, including crucially the proposed major cuts
in state funding. These are basic inaccuracies which reflect sadly on journalistic standards. 'Thirdly,
the sheer scale of this protest and its significance as an early mass challenge
to the Government's 'austerity' policies, fundamentally misguided in the view
of many of the demonstrators I am sure as well as many serious commentators,
was not reflected in the coverage. 20, 000 were expected to attend the
demonstration, but it is clear than there were many more, around 50, 000 in
the estimation of its organisers. This was a major political event, and
should have been properly recognized as such. How is it that the BBC seems
always able to give precise figures for demonstrations which do not achieve
their organisers' aspirations, but was not able to give any estimate of the
size of this one, which of course bears upon its political importance? 'Finally,
the coverage was focused upon the damage to property caused by a small
minority of those who took part in the demonstration. It is right that this
damage should be covered, and that the condemnation of it
by for instance the NUS President as well as members of the Government
should be reported. It is quite wrong that it should be covered at the
expense of proper coverage of a major and serious political protest. 'This
is sadly a pattern of reporting which those of us who are old enough to
remember earlier periods of political protest are quite familiar with. But a
question for the BBC: are you prepared to sacrifice your reputation for good
journalism to give the Coalition the sort of gift that some of its members
and supporters are no doubt dreaming of - painting serious opposition and
protest as mindless violence?' ***************************************************** UNIVERSITY
FUNDING: THE BUDGET AND BROWNE – PART II In
the last issue we shared some early thoughts on the combined implications of
the Browne Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) for UK
universities. Since then some
interesting commentary has been published elsewhere; we read it and summarise
it here, so that you don't have to. The
respected Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) published its own detailed
assessment of the Browne Review on 15 October. HEPI are not critical of the raising of
fees per se, and welcome what they see as an easier payment schedule. However, they point out the unfortunate
timing of the Browne Review, which has allowed the government to cut HE funding more than would have been the case. They argue that, because of this, many
universities will have to cut quality to survive, which could put them further
at risk in a market-led environment.
Other universities, they warn, will probably go under - a development
which will be deeply regrettable, since 'it is in the interests of the
country and the responsibility of the government of the day to ensure that
universities at all levels of excellence thrive' as crucial elements of the
national infrastructure. They also
argue that the move to a market system may end up constraining rather than
increasing student choice, because of increased fees, more students studying
part-time or from home, and the closure of courses and institutions which
will suddenly become uneconomic.
Similarly, the claimed increase in institutional autonomy will be
enjoyed only by elite institutions, while the more generally felt effects
will be that of an intrusive state regulation over quality control,
admissions, and even in some case curricula (http://bit.ly/HEPIBrowne). Other
commentators are less detailed in their analysis than HEPI, instead cutting
straight to what they see as the key implications of the changes. Stefan Collini,
writing in the London Review of Books, sees the proposals as part of a shift
towards a model of higher education as a consumer-driven service industry,
with serious potential consequences for the student-teacher relationship, as
students increasingly understand themselves as
consumers. As such, he warns of the
perverse and negative effects of student-based metrics for assessing the
quality of teaching, based on 'student satisfaction', a criterion which is of
little use for the assessment of courses and their educational worth (http://bit.ly/Brownesgamble). In
an anonymous post to the New Statesman, a humanities lecturer at a Russell
Group university takes a different view, arguing that the idea that Browne's
proposals will transform students into consumers is if anything overly
optimistic. A consumer relationship -
no matter how vulgar, undignified, or reified it may be - implies at least
some form of gratification and interest in the product being purchased. The problem, for the author, is that the
Browne Review posits education not as a commodity but as an investment, to be
judged solely on how well it can produce a monetary return. Behind the veneer of 'student choice'
declared by Browne lies nothing more than students opting to take the courses
that businesses and employers demand.
The author concludes that the Browne Review 'transfers power to the
profit-driven business community, now the dominant decider regarding the
content and purpose of higher education', a move which will threaten the
university as 'a place of independent enquiry and thought' (http://bit.ly/AssessingBrowne). Academics Nick Couldry
and Angela McRobbie make a similar argument in an
essay for Culture Machine (http://bit.ly/deathofuniversity). Finally,
a Guardian article suggests that we are likely to see a rapid expansion of
private universities, as yet almost wholly absent from the UK, as the Browne
proposals produce a level playing field between public and private
institutions. Publicly funded
universities will have to charge similar fees to private ones, and will
increasingly have to offer similarly diverse courses (distance, short,
part-time and so on). Under these
conditions, many existing universities at the top end will be tempted to go
private - and those struggling at the bottom end could end up being taken
over by private companies. And of
course private providers and overseas universities will almost certainly
start offering degrees in the UK, further increasing the pressure on UK
universities (http://bit.ly/privateuniversity). We
hope to continue this digest of Browne commentaries in future issues. ***************************************************** LANCASTER'S
FOREIGN ADVENTURES Talking
of universities setting up shop in other countries, Lancaster is slowly but
surely getting into that game itself.
We are currently involved in joint ventures with institutions in a
range of other countries, including Malaysia, India, Pakistan, China, Japan
and Nigeria. Speaking to the
Independent in March, the Vice-Chancellor said that 'the plan is to have
one-third of our students overseas by 2016' (http://ind.pn/britishdegrees). This might be a good way of getting round
the cap on UK student numbers and increasing our income and name recognition,
but it seems to raise some issues. So subtext decided to take a look at this. A
recent article in University World News suggests that there are three
different categories of universities seeking to get into India, and the
analysis probably holds for other countries.
First there are the 'prestige-enhancing', top-50 research universities
such as Harvard, which are seeking to add to their existing prestige and
relevance 'by offering access to their faculty and students to the emerging
and increasingly important market of India'.
Then there is the 'prestige-seeking' next-tier of 100 universities
such as Lancaster who are 'seeking internationalisation to build their
prestige and at the same time seek opportunities to enhance revenue'. Finally there are the remainder of
universities, who are solely expanding to increase revenues (http://bit.ly/foreignuniversities). But
these things are not without risk. Firstly there's the issue of quality
control. In the 1990s many
universities and even FE colleges expanded abroad in a similar way and ran
into quality control issues (see Warner and Palfreyman,
2003, Managing Crisis). Are there
checks in place to ensure that won't happen to Lancaster? For example, amongst the places where one
can now obtain Lancaster University degrees is Sunway, a private institution
in Malaysia. It's not so surprising that students there can study for
Lancaster degrees in Business, Computer Technology, and Psychology. But,
intriguingly, they can also gain a BSc (Hons) in
International Hospitality Management. Sunway's website boasts of the
facilities on offer: 'students have the opportunity to benefit from the
state-of-the-art learning resources available: well-equipped culinary labs, a
training restaurant, a computerised front office, a mock-up housekeeping
suite, a delicatessen and a functional travel bureau ...'. Readers of the Daily Mail might worry
whether hospitality studies is really the sort of
subject in which degree level study is possible. subtext would never
sink to such levels and concludes that working in a travel bureau is trickier
than one might have guessed. But while
staff at Sunway are presumably qualified to teach
hospitality, so far as can we work out no-one at Lancaster specialises in
this area. How, then, can Lancaster
validate the courses on offer? Similarly,
students studying at COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CITT) in
Pakistan can obtain Lancaster degrees in Electronic Communication Systems,
Business Studies and Computing, but the CIIT website also informs us that
'Lancaster aims to extend this programme to offer joint degrees with CIIT
from all its four faculties including the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
and the School of Health and Medicine' (http://www.ciit-isb.edu.pk/NEFiles/dual_degree_progrm.htm). CITT only started awarding degrees in 2000
and is currently expanding rapidly, but offering degrees in the arts may
prove tricky in the immediate future. Their website suggests that CITT
currently has no arts and humanities staff. Secondly,
there's the difficult subject of dual degrees. Students studying at COMSATS can not only
get a degree at their home institution, but also, if they pay an extra £500 a
year, get a degree from Lancaster University for no extra work. As the website announces this 'brings the
benefit of an international degree at a highly affordable cost without
leaving the comfort of home'.
Similarly, the Sunway website reports that 'students who successfully
complete the programmes will be recognized as graduates of both Sunway
University College and Lancaster University'.' Natural
justice normally suggests that the ratio of bodies of degree work to degrees
awarded should be one-to-one – and one of the things that our students have
to do when they submit a piece of work is to sign a declaration that they
have not submitted the same piece of work for different degrees. Dual degrees are becoming more common in
legal education for example, as they allow students to study part of their
time in one country and part in another, and thus gain familiarity with two
legal systems and fluency in another language. The dual qualification makes them eligible
to work in either country – but obtaining it usually takes four to six years
of study, rather than the normal three years.
The rather different arrangement at COMSATS and Sunway, in which a
student can obtain two degrees for one degree's worth of work, is often known
as a 'dual award' rather than a 'dual degree', and seems to raise far more
questions. Thirdly,
there's the question of the effects of universities setting up shop in
developing countries. Does this
strengthen or weaken the higher education system in that country? Does it create an educated workforce for
the local economy or encourage a brain drain?
Does it enable a shift to affordable mass higher education for all or
simply provide a better education for the children of local elites? The passage this year through the Indian
Parliament of the new 'Foreign education providers
bill' has been instructive. This bill
will allow overseas universities to award degrees independently and set up
branch campuses in India. The Indian
government see this development as necessary if the country is going to
produce all the skilled graduates that its growing
economy needs. Critics, however, warn
of an influx of foreign-owned 'degree mills' and the commercialisation of
Indian higher education. The Indian
left in particular has regarded the bill as socially divisive, and are
demanding concessions such as that overseas universities
be part of the quota system for disadvantaged castes and that the government
set fees (http://bit.ly/globalacademy;
http://bit.ly/hopesandfears). Lancaster's
foreign adventures may well help to balance our books in the lean years that
surely lie ahead. In theory, they may
also help to enhance our international prestige, create rewarding
international academic connections and bring other less tangible
benefits. Such 'partnerships' with
institutions in developing countries have certainly been presented to Senate
as an unmitigated good – and, to be fair, have generally been accepted as
such. Yet they also generate many
questions about the exact form that these joint ventures are taking, and what
their long-term effects might be for Lancaster and for the various host
countries. As far as subtext is aware,
these questions have never been explored at Lancaster in forums that allow
for wide participation and contributions from outside the small circle of
central management. subtext
fully accepts that Lancaster is far from unique in its involvement in such
overseas adventures, and is willing to believe that they may indeed bring
benefits all round. We would, however,
welcome proper, open scrutiny and discussion of the kinds of question raised
above before the University acquires still more partners overseas. ***************************************************** 1966
AND ALL THAT - CHAPTER TEN 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, Lent Term 1969: 'Those were the days, my friend…' * After a year of
living politically as President of the County JCR, I return to Lancaster and
to a very different way of life: no more committees, no more office of my own
and no more free entry to dances.
Instead, there is something called 'academic work' which must be done.
* My thoughts
soon turn to what to do when I finish in June. There are two main options:
procrastination, i.e postgrad
work, or grasping the future in both hands and embarking on a career. Or I could teach. Decide to pursue all three for the time
being and begin to fill in any and every application form I can find. * There are three
stages in the process of finding employment: an interview with the company's
recruitment staff when they visit Lancaster (easy), a second interview, if
invited, at the company's headquarters over Easter (much more difficult) and,
finally, the offer of a job (varying levels of probability). * All of a sudden
there is competition among some third years to see who can get the most
second interviews and job offers. I
have very pleasant chats with representatives of British Leyland, Ford,
Rolls-Royce, Hawker-Siddeley, BAC, Marconi, English
Electric, Pressed Steel Fisher and Elliot Automation. The first four apparently make cars but I
am not entirely sure what the others do. * Early on in the term I secure a second
interview with Hawker-Siddeley, who tell me that
they have recruited only two arts graduates in the last four years and that I
am the only one they have interviewed this a year. A hit!
A very palpable hit! I never
hear from them again. * The post-grad
route is easier because all you need to get a place is a 2.1, or at least the
prospect of one. I am offered places
on the M.Sc course in Strategic Studies at
Aberystwyth, the M.A. in Contemporary International History at The New
University of Ulster and the M.A. in War Studies at King's College, London as
well as at UCL and Lancaster. The
problem is getting a grant. * The place at
King's College is conditional on an interview and I duly make the 500 mile
round trip from Lancaster down to London and back. When I get there, I am interviewed by a
charming central European gentleman and someone who may be Noel Coward. The interview lasts precisely 12 minutes. Early on I mention a long-standing interest
in the utility of systems theory, an interest that started as my train passed
through Watford Junction earlier in the day.
Even I am surprised by how convincing I am. * I am now a
regular member of the Hockey Club 1st XI, though not always in my favoured
position, which suggests that I am the 11th name to go on the team sheet –
but that's better than being the 12th. * When our
goalkeeper fails to turn up for the game against Southport, I am deputed to
take his place. I have pads and
kickers, but no gloves or other protection.
I stick my copy of Hitch and McKean's The
Economics of Defence in the Nuclear Age down my tracksuit bottoms and hope
for the best. As usual, my choice of
reading material lets me down badly and we lose 2-1, despite one brilliant
diving save when I accidentally trip over the book which has inexplicably
disappeared down my left trouser-leg. * On another
occasion a member of the football team volunteers for the same job. He is ignorant of the rules of hockey, and
when a ball loops high towards his goal, he leaps like a salmon to head it
over the bar. He is completely bemused
by the spontaneous round of applause he receives from all 21 other players. * Lancaster has its
characters and Dolly, who runs the JCR bar in Centenary House, is one of
them. Her leaving is marked with due
reverence and an enormous amount of drinking.
Rounds are £3 a time. In the
early hours of the morning we all decide to go to Aled's
for coffee, but he can't remember where he lives, so we leave him and go home
instead. * Back in Dolphinholme the three of us are getting through 3 1/2
dozen eggs a week. We are not sure how
or why, but as the Egg Marketing Board advert has it,
'eggs is good, eggs is cheap'. * Our landlord has
also had a phone put in so at last we can communicate with the outside
world. Not sure if this is a good
idea: the outside world can now communicate with us. * In mid-February
there is a heavy fall of snow which lies on the ground for almost two
weeks. We get snowed in, but, much to
our annoyance, only for one afternoon - and it is a Saturday as well. We keep our Sunday chicken in the back
garden because it is colder there than in the fridge. * Without student
politics to divert us, we all begin to work harder and more steadily. And, to our surprise, our essay marks get
better: after 2 1/2 years I get my first 'A'.
Work harder, get better grades.
Who would have thought it? And
why didn't anyone tell us? * But life is not all work and the Rag Ball
on the Wednesday of Charities' Week is graced by Geno
Washington, the Ram Jam Band, Spooky Tooth, Jon Hiseman's
Coliseum and Patents Pending, all for 15/-, while the Bacchanalian Ball in
the Lonsdale and Bowland Refectory is a togas-only
affair for 6/-. * The final Song
Workshop/Adrian Mitchell collaboration is a musical based loosely upon The
Odyssey and called Lash Me to the Mast.
It runs for five performances at the Grand Theatre, Lancaster, and The
County College Gentlemen's Vocal Ensemble, dressed in stripy blazers and
straw boaters, play the Sirens as a close harmony
quintet. * As part of the
publicity for the show, we record The Siren's Song and Underneath the Old Oak
Tree for Radio 4. 'As daylight falls, I feel the pain. I shall not pass this
way again ...'. Can I really only have one term left
at Lancaster? ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear
subtext, A
former colleague's response to Paul Wellings' recent
article in the guardian newspaper. On
8th November chairman of the 1994 group of universities and vice chancellor
of Lancaster University, Professor Paul Wellings
rallied against those issuing 'portents of doom' for UK universities and
students. Let those without sin cast the first stone Paul. Some still
remember your warning in July 2009 of an impending 'valley of death' for UK
universities until fees could be raised. The
acquiescence of Professor Wellings is precisely one
of the reasons why UK universities are now being clobbered by cuts. His approach has done nothing to counter
the pound-for-pound replacement of state funding with contributions from
students that this government is now proposing. In
the interests of 'constructive debate' (something that has been lacking from
university leaders with their students), I should remind my former colleague
Prof. Wellings of a fact: the national UCU/NUS
demonstration was focused on protecting higher education against the 'valley
of death', it was not orientated solely around tuition fee levels. Perhaps you should've joined the 50,000 of
us, Paul. Wellings is yet another benefactor of free higher
education now pontificating to students and their families about how much
they should pay for the same privilege.
The hypocrisy of a vice chancellor calling for 'constructive debate'‚
after his association with the arrest and charging of six of his students
(the 'George Fox Six') for peaceful protest in 2005 is deeply insulting. Wellings has
persistently lobbied for greater contributions from current and future
generations. Now he wants people to
sit around a table for discussion: this happened, Prof. Wellings,
it was called the Browne Review and students were excluded. On this one you're too late, Paul: the
horse has bolted. Kind
regards, Michael
Payne, former president of Lancaster University Students' Union (2008-10) and
chair of Unions94 (2009-10). ****** Dear
subtext Further
to the correspondence (subtext 66) about the use of the term 'international
student', 'international company' etc., one of the things which has bugged
and puzzled me for many years is the constant use in the media - by
broadcasters, pundits, commentators on foreign affairs, even well-known
academic experts - of the term 'the international community', which, as far
as I am concerned, is without any precise definition. What exactly do they mean? The United Nations Organization? NATO?
The EU? G20 (or whatever number
it now is)? Are such independent,
sovereign states - often described as 'rogue states' - e.g. North Korea,
Iran, Cuba, Somalia etc. - part of the 'international community'(from which
the implication is often that they are excluded)? I
have consulted political scientists, journalists, specialists on foreign
policy, linguists and others for enlightenment, but have so far received no
satisfactory explanation or definition.
This indicates to me that the people who use, overuse, misuse or abuse
this vacuous, meaningless term don't really know what on Earth they are
talking about. Any suggestions? Alan
Wood ***************************************************** 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. |