|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext
issue
85 9
February 2012 ***************************************************** '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/. If
you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you
click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message
were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'. CONTENTS:
editorial, news in brief, China syndrome, reviews (Schubert and saxophones),
more bpr, sports centre, facebook,
covering up, deans-gate, straws and camels, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL In
our last issue we noted the positive feelings which the Vice-Chancellor has
generated since his arrival. Nothing has happened since then to diminish this
favourable impression. It's clear that he doesn't feel hamstrung by decisions
taken before his arrival. In particular, and we mustn't get ahead of
ourselves here, there is a strong sense that the much-maligned Business
Process Review (BPR), which was discussed at some length in subtext 84, might
not after all give rise to the kind of radical changes which rumour initially
suggested. This
is all to the good; it is also the kind of atmosphere which might lure us
into a kind of complacency - a feeling that cuts in administrative and
support staff will inevitably be made, but they will not be as bad as we
first feared and will therefore be somehow tolerable. There will be talk of
'difficult decisions', 'the current climate', 'rationalisation' and the need
for economy, flexibility and realism. subtext does not subscribe to this view. Even in 'the
current climate', the loss of valued colleagues and the evisceration of
departmental administrative structures, which the BPR still threatens, should
not be allowed to happen without resistance. As we will continue to argue,
criticism of the BPR will be informed by something a lot more powerful than
(understandable) sentiment, or a refusal to countenance beneficial change. subtext has as yet seen no evidence which would lead
anyone to imagine that the projected changes could be even remotely
beneficial. As Napoleon was advised after a particularly egregious decision,
'It's worse than a crime: it's a mistake'. Recent
signs that the BPR might be (at best) watered down should make us more
determined in advocating a cause which is so obviously right. While the
unions are clearly well prepared for action against the cuts, every colleague
can, if necessary, take complementary action at departmental level to deliver
an unmistakable message. By threatening to make Lancaster less distinctive -
by forcing us into the race to the bottom which other universities seem to
have joined, at a time when student satisfaction is more important than ever
- the BPR is a threat to everything that we have helped to build here. While
welcoming the tone of Professor Smith's recent remarks, subtext has no
intention of being lulled into complacency on this issue. Having aroused
expectations that common sense might prevail after all, university managers
would be very ill advised to push for a 'compromise' solution which continues
to reflect the original rationale of the BPR. ********************************************************* NEWS
IN BRIEF College
bars In
subtext 83 we reported that LUSU would be taking over the running of the
college bars, and gave this development a qualified welcome, on the ground
that LUSU must have some expertise in the profitable management of licensed
premises. subtext has learned, however, that the
bars will not now be going to LUSU. This volte-face seems to have been the
result of difficulties in negotiations with HR over bar staff's terms and
conditions of employment, but LUSU officers are reportedly quite relieved at
not having to take responsibility for keeping nine bars open and making a
profit - a tricky circle to square. Responsibility for the bars therefore
remains with Mark Swindlehurst and Facilities, but
we should not expect questions about opening hours and staffing levels to go
away. ******* Whistle-blowing A
new publication 'The Whistleblower' appeared last week, billing itself as
'Lancaster University's Only Independent Student Newspaper'. subtext always welcomes new voices, especially one which
declares itself to be critical. We look forward with interest to seeing what
identity the paper forges for itself over subsequent issues. ******* China
syndrome For
many subscribers of a certain age, it is still difficult to walk past a
branch of Barclays Bank without feeling the need to shout 'Boycott!', due to that institution's unrepentant business links in
the 1970s with what we then called 'the apartheid regime' in South Africa. At
least one member of the subtext collective still refuses to eat shredded
wheat on the grounds that it is made by the food giant Nestlé, whose
activities in Africa were then, and arguably still are, widely deemed
ethically dubious. There are other organisations, commercial and political,
which some individuals still feel are unacceptable partners or donors for an
HE institution. Unsurprisingly therefore, the morality and appropriateness of
areas of Lancaster's involvement with the outside world - both academic and
commercial, a distinction increasingly blurring - rears its head
periodically; indeed one such episode, the George Fox 6 affair in 2004, was
the spur to the founding of subtext. Some
subscribers, therefore, will have felt a familiar but long-suppressed pang
upon reading about the University's plans to collaborate yet further with
Guangdong University. (There was a rather good report in the week 7 issue of
SCAN last term, if you haven't yet caught up with developments.) Let us say
at once that we do not equate China with apartheid South Africa. That said, it is no secret that there is widespread disquiet in the
West about China's authoritarian domestic policy in general, and its
activities in Tibet in particular. This is not a party political issue; David
Cameron raised the issue of human rights while in China on 9 November 2010,
and the cases of dissidents such as the imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner
Liu Xiaobo and the artist Ai Weiwei
have been widely publicised. In
fairness, SCAN reports Dennis Esch, LU
International Students' Officer, as expressing some concerns about issues of
academic freedom within what is a comparatively tightly regulated
environment, and notes that the Chinese government reserves the right to set
compulsory subjects of its own choosing in the degree foundation year. This
right is acknowledged by the University, but the implications are apparently
finessed away by the fact that the compulsory subjects 'will not be part of
the degree we award' (Lancaster PVC Steve Bradley). Some might argue that
this attitude approaches the disingenuous; it was news to the subtext
collective that Lancaster University did not consider the foundation element
of its degrees to be part of those degrees. Indeed, a good deal of time and
effort is spent by Lancaster University to ensure that the foundation degrees
run by Lancaster's other associated colleges (at Blackpool and so on) are
exactly that. Like it or not, in the eyes of the world the Lancaster
imprimatur is being given to these degrees and thus to these compulsory
subjects, however much we may dismiss them as being outside our remit. It
would, we readily acknowledge, be ridiculously self-aggrandising for
Lancaster University to suppose that it could persuade the Chinese government
to liberalise its human rights policy, though it would be nice to think that
we might try. It would be encouraging, however, to think that the one aspect
of our relationship with Guangdong that we have some control over, the
academic content of courses, would at least challenge - however covertly -
the context imposed upon it. This may become more pressing in future years;
the first courses are largely business-orientated, and thus perhaps less
obviously controversial, but in time it is planned to offer Arts and
Humanities degrees as well. One wonders, to pick an example at random, what
compulsory modules the Chinese government might want to put on a Lancaster
Foundation Degree in Criminology? Or in Politics? It is also perhaps time to
ask the wider question again; what if anything do we, as an institution,
regard as unacceptable practice? Are we morally
neutral in these sorts of collaborations? Is there any government on the
planet that the University would not do business with? Or, when supping with
the devil, is it enough to point proudly to our long spoon? ********************************************************* REVIEW
- Schubert's Octet, Great Hall Of
the octets in the chamber music repertoire - and there are not very many -
the two that are widely acknowledged to be the most rewarding for players and
popular with audiences were written within a year of each other. Schubert's
octet for strings and wind was published in 1824 when he was 27 years old;
the octet for strings by the 16-year-old Mendelssohn came in 1825. Both are
masterpieces; yet it seems to have been a coincidence that they appeared, one
in Vienna, the other in Berlin, at almost the same time. Full
of melody, the Schubert octet is a sunny piece that can be almost guaranteed
to leave its audience cheerful, despite the lurking menace and drama that surfaces from time to time in the final movement. It
was given a fine performance in the Great Hall on 26 January by the
Manchester Camerata Ensemble, led by the young
Venezuelan violinist Giovanni Guzzo. The demanding
parts for all eight musicians were played not just with expertise, but also
with evident enjoyment. The
first half of the programme included a quartet for strings and bassoon by Danzi, an enjoyable piece, and a new piece, Moment
Translucent, by the Anglo-Moroccan composer Brahim Kerkour, who is the current composer-in-residence with
Manchester Camerata. This work deconstructs a few
bars of the Schubert octet. This process might be more interesting on further
hearing, but it would be a tough intellectual process and it might not
justify the effort. Finally
in the first half we heard a remarkable piece: Richard Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel, originally written for full symphony
orchestra, arranged for five instruments. Strauss is renowned for his
orchestration, so one might feel that arranging one of his large works for
the apparently incongruous combination of violin, double-bass, French horn,
clarinet and bassoon would be courting disaster; but the result was
surprisingly effective. One could almost suspend disbelief and imagine the
whole orchestra was in full flow. ***************************************************** REVIEW
- Saxophone quartet, Great Hall The
following week's concert was again by a chamber group with a relationship
with Manchester; but this was the only similarity. The Apollo Saxophone
Quartet, spanning from soprano sax at the top down to bass sax at the bottom,
was founded at the Royal Northern College of Music in 1985. Inevitably, there
was a limited repertoire of music written for this combination, so the
quartet has been very active in commissioning and composing new works and
making new arrangements of existing ones, to the point where in those 25
years they have premiered over 100 new pieces. We heard several at the
concert on 2 February - and not only heard: the group have composed a number
of scores to be performed alongside old silent films, and three of these were
included in their Great Hall concert. The music seemed highly appropriate to
the on-screen visuals. What's more, the music finished almost exactly at the
same moment the films did, which seemed a remarkable achievement. The
music performed in this concert was mostly rapid and highly virtuosic, both
for the individual players and for the quartet as a whole. By the end, one
began to long for something more lyrical. But this was a very stimulating
evening. *********************************************** MORE
BPR There
is a UNITE petition in support of colleagues threatened by the Business
Process Review. This is all to the good, but some will wonder if a petition
will prove an effective way of opposing the BPR. A possibly more useful way
will be discussion at Faculty PRCs. The Faculty of Science and Technology
(FST) PRC meeting on 7 November was attended by the Programme Manager who
outlined some of proposed changes. In response a number of points were made.
In summary: - It
is unclear what evidence is driving these changes. -
FST (and no doubt other faculties) is complex: a single institutional model
is unlikely to be appropriate. -
What is the role and status of those involved in the BPR project? They may not be representative of
faculty-wide interests. -
Centralisation of finance and marketing could impact on the volume of admin
that has to be done by HoDs. - It
could be more appropriate to pilot changes in processes before implementing
structural change. - Is
it sensible to plan for further changes to admissions so soon after the p/g
admissions reorganisation? -
Has a thorough risk assessment been carried out as part of the BPR programme? Answers
to these questions would go a long way to making people feel that the process
had been properly thought through. Finally,
and perhaps most significantly, we understand that there are apparently no
minutes or formal records of many BPR project meetings, and there is no
feedback to members. While this may seem justified to those involved, a lack
of minutes will be interpreted by many as a well-recognised means for the
chiefs to get away with whatever they like whilst at the same time claiming
that consultation has taken place. As Alistair Campbell once said, it doesn't
matter what's actually going on; what matters is what it will look like from
the outside. Rightly or wrongly, this looks suspect. ************************************************** SPORTS
CENTRE We
love the new Sports Centre and any problems we may have with it are quibbles.
What does concern us a bit is the siting of the new
traffic arrangements at the Centre entrance. This combines a new chicane-type
traffic island, a 4-direction junction partly hidden by a rise in the road,
decelerating buses, careering bikes, cars crossing the line of traffic in
different directions, a pedestrian crossing without traffic lights carrying
people many of whom are wearing headphones, and everything filtered together
in a way that relies very heavily on all parties involved being wide awake at
all times. The speed bump helps to slow down incoming traffic, which is a
start, but we've seen two near-misses in the last week. We'd welcome opinion
from users. Does anyone else think this is an accident waiting to happen? ***************************************************** FACEBOOK Lancaster
does not yet have a policy (or even guidelines, or, as far as we can make
out, an opinion) on how staff should deal with Facebook.
To mention the simplest example, should staff accept friend requests from
students? Of course, most of the time this would be unproblematic, but
equally obviously, it is the exceptions that will always be the problem. Similarly, should staff be prepared to
contribute to the Facebook pages that many students
have set up to enable them to work together and share resources? Students
take this sort of thing for granted and are puzzled by reluctance. There are
a number of other similar connected questions. We understand that other
institutions (UCLAN for one) have already run into problems and are putting
together guidelines to assist staff in these murky waters. Should Lancaster
be following its usual policy of 'wait until something goes wrong before doing
anything about it', or should we be doing something about it right now? Is
this issue really something that can be ignored? ***************************************************** COVERING
UP Twenty
years ago we had covered ways. It was possible to walk from Grizedale to County College without getting wet, apart
from a brief interlude just before County steps, as if the builders had run
out of materials just before the end of the job. Not so now. If it's raining
and you're going to Alexandra Park, or to George Fox, or Infolab,
or County (the ten yard dash has become a 50-metre one, nearer 150 metres for
disabled folk) then you're going to get wet. If you're going to the Sports
Centre you're going to get very wet indeed. Granted the Sport Centre is a
long way away, but the County situation in particular seems a matter of
spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. Visitors
on Open Days are usually willing to grant that we can't do much about the
weather, but we could at least try to protect ourselves and those we hope to
impress from the worst effects of it. ***************************************************** DEANS-GATE Rumblings
from FASS, where Tony McEnery is stepping down as
Dean. A search committee is looking both inside and outside the University
for possible candidates. A few greybeards have been heard mumbling into their
gruel that back in the mists of about ten years ago, prospective Deans put
themselves forward for election, they canvassed the Faculty, and they were
voted for by those who they would represent. Nowadays it seems that they are
found and appointed. subtext is entirely sure that the new arrangement is
performed in good faith, and it is doubtless much less cumbersome and awkward
and altogether more managerial than some old-fashioned democratic muddle, but
some are asking i) when it was decided to do things
this way, ii) who took the decision, and iii) whether there is anything in
the University constitution about such procedures. All that aside, the advertisement in the Times Higher
(3/2/12) for Prof McEnery's replacement has the
following enigmatic wording: 'The role of Dean is offered for an initial five
year period overlying an indefinite academic appointment'. subtext
would like to believe that this means that the person chosen will be an academic
and would return to being one after five years. However, words are so often weaselly. Can anyone clarify whether this will be, in
effect, an additional academic appointment, albeit delayed? Or are we
parachuting in a manager who will serve for five years and then leave for
greener pastures? ***************************************************** STRAWS
AND CAMELS Students
are to be lumbered with debt, for better or worse. As so often, it's the
small things that really niggle. For example, the machines for photocopying
in the library. The charge is 10p per copy. We don't know what profit the
University makes on this, but we do know that the resentment it causes is
substantial. Students would naturally like it to be free ('We're paying £9K,
isn't that enough?'), and, while that isn't going to happen, the price would
be a lot easier to justify if, for example, it was somewhere near break even.
Expect more on this. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear
subtext, I
have read with interest your recent piece on the business process review. I
fear that the proposals to centralise university administration could be
disastrous on two levels. 1.
Student Satisfaction: Lancaster is currently rated very highly for student
satisfaction and I believe that some of this is due to dedicated
administrative staff based in our departments. See June Coulson,
Departmental Secretary in Psychology who has been awarded an MBE for her
services to education in the new year's honours list. 2.
Research Output: Lancaster has an international standing for high quality
research and I believe strong administrative backing makes this possible. The
practicalities and organisation of large research trials are often forgotten.
The extra burden that we suspect will be given to academics, already juggling
multiple demands, will make it extremely difficult
to continue the same level of output. Best
Wishes, Todd
Nicholas ***************************************************** The
editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order)
of: Rachel Cooper (PPR), Mark Garnett, George Green, David Smith, Bronislaw
Szerszynski and Martin Widden. |