|
|
subtext |
|
Home |
subtext
issue
95 1
November 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, indoor climate of campus buildings, making
professor 25 September, wind turbine, debate with Aditya
Chakrabortty of The Guardian, recital by Demidenko, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL:
College Design The
University website describes the Colleges as '...one of the most distinctive
and valued features of the University.' We would argue that, largely as a
result of the changes to the physical fabric of the University over the last
twenty years, the Colleges are 'distinctive' and 'valued' only in the same
sense that New Labour is 'socialist' and the People's Republic of North Korea
is 'Democratic'. Calling something something does
not make it so – in fact, it can merely serve to draw attention to the gap
between the claim and the reality. Let
it be clearly said that any criticism should be seen in the context of
consistently valiant efforts by College officers and members to stem the
flow. People involved with the Colleges – and there are not enough – see the
good they can do, and work hard to keep the show on the road. But they have
had to contend with constant rhetorical lauding of the College system as a
selling-point for prospective undergraduates coupled with a consistent and
debilitating devaluing and removal of resources from the Colleges by the
University in practice. Let's be clear, almost every renovation of the
various buildings across campus has resulted in a dilution of College identity.
We do not say that this was a conscious strategic decision – it would perhaps
be more forgivable if it was. This is more due to neglect and a
misunderstanding of what Colleges are actually for. So. What gives a College 'identity'? Social space
for a start. This is not simply every College having its own bar, (although
that's a start), any more than it would if every College had its own swimming
pool (though that's a thought). Bars don't give character to Colleges, the
people and activities that happen in the bar do. The recent removal of
licensees from bars and replacing them with managers who aren't really in
charge removes the capacity for the character of a bar to be a reflection of
those who run it. Further, back in the day, every College once had a Junior
Common Room, the running of which was vested in the College. This is
essential for College spirit. If a space is centrally timetabled then it
doesn't belong to the students, and multi-use spaces (aka glorified seminar
rooms) don't lend themselves to the sort of things – often not entirely
respectable – that students get up to when left to get on with things. Yes,
JCRs were untidy (managerially and often literally), yes they are
inefficient, but that's how you build College spirit. And those spaces were
used for JCR meetings, and a goodly proportion of undergraduates attended
those meetings, because they were seen as meaningful and because officers
went round the bar beforehand, looked people in the eye and told them to pick
up their drink and come to the meeting. Not any more. Let's not forget that
every College had an SCR as well. All of these are now gone, turned into more
efficient space. People wonder why staff no longer get
involved with the Colleges. Put simply, there used to be a place where they
could go which was specifically identified with College membership. Not any
more. We
could go on, but we and you are all busy people. So here's the thing. College
Principals and staff have increasingly been placed in a thankless situation.
The University is divided into eight sections, the divisions as random and
taking as little cognisance of existing realities as the carving up of Africa
in the late 19th Century. The reasons for the divisions of students into
Colleges are now entirely administrative and sporting; there is no meaningful
College identity beyond a random separation into groups identified by
different badges. Membership of a College doesn't mean anything any more. It
used to. It should. The Colleges - Principals, staff, Student Officers, not
the University – should be getting together to write a plan to re-energise
and re-establish the Colleges as a vibrant force in the community. Prof Wellings' priority was to get the buildings renovated and
then organised in a way that fitted activities in straight lines on a
spreadsheet. Spaces do not exist to arrange people's lives, they exist to
service them. The Colleges need to approach the new Vice-Chancellor and make
him see the urgent need for a new vision. We
are aware that these are interesting times for the Colleges, and that others are thinking about how they may move forward.
Next issue we will present some possibilities. Contributions and letters
welcome. ***************************************************** NEWS
IN BRIEF Funding Subscribers
will have been informed (but probably not surprised) by the front page of the
Independent on 25.10.12: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/whether-you-call-it-unishambles-or-not-education-is-becoming-available-only-to-those-who-can-afford-it-8227896.html?origin=internalSearch.
We won't rehash the article, but in essence: despite the fact that we have
moved to a system where students instead of the government (that's the
taxpayer) are funding education, it is still going to cost the government
(again, that's us) more now than it did when the government paid for it. So
the government (very definitely not us in this instance) will probably have
to reduce the number of university places in order to cover the deficit.
Perhaps there is a certain mad genius to charging people three times as much
for something in order to reduce a subsidy, and ending up actually having to
increase the subsidy as a result. Or perhaps the new figures just make
brutally clear what some have been saying all along - that the shift of
funding from block grant to fees was part of an ideological neoliberal
project to undermine the notion of the public university, smuggled in under
the cover of the financial crisis. ******* Venue
hours When
The Venue (the coffee shop just south of Alexandra Square) first opened some ten(?) years ago it offered a quieter and more civilised
experience than most of the campus coffee bars. The furniture may have been a
bit twee and incongruously cottagey, and the
service was often remarkably slow, but at least the place was reasonably
clean and quiet, and it had newspapers for customers to read. Anyone
who goes to The Venue for a cup of tea at 4.15 pm, which might be thought a
reasonable time to do this, will now find that they will be encouraged to
drink up from about 4.20 onwards - because the place now closes at 4.30.
Afternoon tea is often thought to be the most civilised meal of the day, but
it isn't at all civilised to be hustled almost as soon as you sit down. It
would be helpful if the place advertised its opening hours so that one
wouldn't be tempted to go in at 4.15 in the hope of a relaxing cup of tea. ******* USS
Pensions Fund A
recent Private Eye (no. 1325, dated 19 October – 1 November 2012) observes
that the Universities Superannuation Scheme, which receives the pension
contributions of academic staff in UK universities and should eventually
provide their pensions, has made a number of 'disastrous' investment
decisions over the past few years which have turned the scheme from one that
was fully funded into one with a deficit of £10bn. It has achieved this by
investing in shares and 'alternative' investments such as hedge funds and
private equity, very much against the advice of (for example) pensions
experts and the Financial Times. Private Eye reports that USS is only
gradually clawing its way back. It also says that the scheme's Chief
Investment Officer, John Gray, received pay from USS of £810,000 plus pension
last year. This generous sum was paid largely because the scheme outperformed
a strategic benchmark which appears to have been largely notional. No doubt
this kind of shameless behaviour is common currency in the City. ******* Empowering
women In
the last issue of subtext we commented on the lamentable example of the
student cricket club advertising itself with a picture of a young woman
dressed in cricket pads and a bikini. Ho hum. Now we
see (right next to the cricket club advert, as it happens, which may or may
not be significant) a flyer for pole-dance classes. It keeps you fit,
apparently. So, of course, would washing men's clothes, carrying their bags
and running errands to the shops for them. Perhaps in weeks to come we'll see
flyers for a new student society promoting those activities for young women
too. Forward to the 1950s... ******* Nicknames Also
in the last issue of subtext we ran a piece about the nicknames people give
their workmates. Thanks to those who contacted us with further examples. The
three best ones were 'Waldo' (because no-one could ever find him); 'The Time
Terrorist'; and (of a colleague) 'The Unobtainable Sanguinary Plumber'.
Because he never did a bloody tap. More please. ***************************************************** INDOOR
CLIMATE OF CAMPUS BUILDINGS In
the last issue of subtext we noted that a number of recent campus buildings
had scored very highly under the BREEAM method of rating the energy economy
of buildings at the design stage. We wrote that 'in some buildings that have
been BREEAM-rated there have been complaints about poor ventilation and about
the indoor climate in general', but observed that this didn't apply to any
buildings on the Lancaster campus as far as subtext knew. Since then some of
our subscribers have made sure we are better informed. Comments
on the Charles Carter Building, by the architects McAslan
and Partners, praise the building for its open, airy and bright ambience, but
a number of negative views were also expressed. The large central atrium has
a tiled floor, about one third of which slopes gradually down to the entrance
doors to provide easy access to the building for people with disabilities.
The trouble with the slope is that it makes this large area of floor unusable
for almost any activity other than moving into or out of the building. This
is a big waste of indoor space. The
open atrium extends upwards through all four floors of the building. At B, C
and D floor levels there are large work spaces for postgraduates which are
open to the atrium on one side. The hard tiled floor at the bottom is a good
reflector of sound, and there is substantial student traffic to and from
classes at ground-floor level, so these open work spaces are noisy.
Postgraduate students generally prefer a quiet working environment, so these
postgraduate work areas are grossly underused (at 11 am on Monday the total
number of students using the 70-odd desks was zero). The
entrance from the spine is via sliding doors which open wide to allow large
numbers to pass through. Of course, the doors also let a lot of cold air in,
and the ground floor is cold in winter; on the other hand, D floor is often
too hot. Several of the desks in the open area of D floor have fans on them. Many
other comments on the Charles Carter Building have been made and documented,
but perhaps the most telling is that there was not much meaningful
consultation about usage habits before the spaces were designed. Concerns
were aired about noise, but these concerns were ignored. Another
recent building that has attracted criticism is the ISS Building at the
south-east corner of the campus, just within the perimeter road. This
building contains a spacious open-plan work area for many ISS staff, and an
enclosed machines area. The workspaces are quite pleasant, but many of the
ISS staff find the climate uncomfortable within their
part of the building, because the humidity is usually very low. Consequences
of this are generation of static electricity (sparks have apparently killed
off a number of lap-tops), exacerbation of skin problems for those who are
susceptible, and general discomfort. The dry atmosphere also makes people
feel cold, so the indoor temperature has been raised to compensate, to 24° or
even 25°C. Some have had to bring in humidifiers, so as to create a tolerable
atmosphere in their work areas. This is all very wasteful of energy,
obviously. It
appears that some late design decisions may be to blame for the
unsatisfactory climate in the ISS Building. Humidity regulation was probably
value-engineered out of the building during the design phase. Whatever the
cause, the University could probably save money in the medium-to-long term,
as well as providing a better working environment for the staff, if it took
another look at the cooling and heating arrangements in the ISS Building
office space. PS
Here is an extract from 'Property Week', August 8th, 2008: 'A Hummer could
get a BREEAM excellent rating so long as the seats were made of recycled
material, water was collected for re-use in the windscreen washers, the tyres
had efficient tread design and there was a bike rack built into the boot
door.' ***************************************************** MAKING
PROFESSOR, 25 SEPTEMBER Lancaster
University held its fourth 'Making Professor' event in September, following
up on earlier such events in 2000, 2003 and 2009. The idea of these events is
to gather people together to address issues of equality and diversity in
academic career development. Issues such as ethnic diversity were touched on,
but the focus was particularly on how to correct the gender imbalance in
senior academic posts at the University. Two of our four Faculty Deans are
women, and one of our three Pro-VCs, but at the department level Lancaster
tends to follow the national picture: although female undergraduates now
outnumber male ones, the balance quickly shifts in favour of men as one moves up the grades of academic staff from lecturer to
senior lecturer and beyond. Things are getting better, but only slowly: in
2003 only 15% of UK professors were women, in 2006 it was 17.5%, and in 2010
still only 20%. For
some disciplines, this imbalance is already there at A-level choice. But for
other subjects it only really starts above the level of lecturer, so we have
to put the spotlight on the internal norms and practices of academic life if
we want to explain and address it. During the day a number of barriers to
advancement for women academics were mentioned: women not being as well
networked, either formally in learned societies or through the kind of
informal networking that happens in evening drinking sessions at conferences;
a lack of positive leadership at departmental level to set a good example and
to encourage an inclusive culture; cultural norms in meetings which mean that
ideas put forward by women are often ignored (including by women) or claimed
by men; promotions criteria that reward the more traditionally 'masculine'
behaviour of individual research excellence rather than teaching,
administration or good collegiality; and inflexible career expectations that
put anyone taking maternity leave at a severe disadvantage. After
an introduction by the Vice Chancellor, the day started with two female
professors, Louise Heathwaite and Jennie Popay, describing their own path to becoming professor.
Both stories were illuminating, especially the contrasts between them.
Professor Heathwaite's story, though clearly
involving a great deal of application, sounded similar to that of many male
professors in its ordered progression and emphasis on individual achievement;
that of Professor Popay, by contrast, was much more
unconventional and circuitous, and crucially involved strong support networks
of feminist academics at her home institutions. Yet it was a shame that
neither of the speakers had gone through Lancaster's chair promotion process,
but had been appointed here as professors; many of those present would
probably have appreciated hearing first-hand from someone who had. In the
presentation later in the day by Andy Clarke, Director of HR, he suggested
that one key factor in Lancaster's improvement in the proportion of its professors
that are female, from 4.7% in 2000, to 22% today, was the move to
transparent, clear promotions criteria. But would everyone agree with that
description of the current criteria? The
most inspiring talk of the day was from Professor Paul Walton, Head of
Chemistry at York University, who described how his department achieved a
coveted Athena SWAN Gold award for their work to address the gender
imbalance. His presentation emphasised the word 'fair', distinguishing
between positive action (what York did – just ensuring that processes were
equitable) and positive discrimination (for example quotas - probably
illegal). He also insisted that the changes were not a case of the pursuit of
equality at the expense of quality, but had in fact significantly enhanced the
department's reputation and academic output. He also suggested that the most
significant changes came not through introducing new policies but by changing
departmental culture. Nevertheless,
Professor Walton outlined some specific innovations that he felt had been
important, including annual promotion seminars chaired by the HoD; the publication of anonymous successful promotion
cases; ensuring that committee members behaved fairly; the creation of an
Inclusiveness Committee with the job of making the department fairer;
meetings being held within 'core hours' (10.00-15.00) to allow those with
young children to attend; and inclusive social activities. But he highlighted
two initiatives as having had the most beneficial impact. The first was
issuing a guarantee that anyone working part-time could return to full-time
work when they wanted to; despite concerns about the cost to the salary bill,
this in fact went down as many members of staff – both male and female – felt
secure enough to reduce their hours and adjust their work-life balance
without burning their boats. The second was grounded in research which showed
that maternity leave does indeed damage academic careers; in response, the
department offered women taking maternity leave resources to support them on
their return to work in order to prevent loss of career momentum. One
thing that Professor Walton stressed was that it was crucial that
universities talked with their social scientists, since it was they who have
the theoretical understanding and evidence on which effective strategies can
be built. subtext hopes that this advice is heeded,
and that future events of this type take advantage of local expertise in
gender matters. Participants from the Centre for Gender and Women's Studies
made a number of useful contributions illustrating the kind of critical
intellectual work that can make visible the barriers that slow down women's
promotion – for example the use of subtly gendered language in promotions
criteria, such as 'distinguished' and 'excellence'. Perhaps
the most encouraging aspect of the day was that the Vice-Chancellor not only
introduced the meeting, but stayed until the final breakout session, and
seemed to be genuinely engaged. This suggests that, if anyone senior enough
were to really take this agenda forward in a systematic way for Lancaster,
they might well get the kind of backing – and resources – that would be
needed to really make a difference at Lancaster. ***************************************************** WIND
TURBINE Installation
of the University's new wind turbine on the Hazelrigg
site was completed last week in a benign spell of relatively still weather.
It is expected to be in operation in a few weeks from now. Approximately due
east of County College main building and on the other side of the M6, the
turbine is clearly visible from parts of the campus. It
is also visible to the residents of houses in Hazelrigg
Lane, and according to reports in the Lancaster Guardian of 25 October they
aren't pleased with it. They do not like the look of it, it spoils their
views of the countryside, they are worried about the noise it may make, and
they are also concerned about flicker disturbance from the blades. Until the
turbine begins to operate, it is impossible to tell how far their concerns
may be justified, but it is unfortunate that the University did not manage to
allay their fears in advance. The Lancaster Guardian says that the owners of
Valley View Boarding Kennels, the nearest property to the turbine, decided
that they would sell up rather than live so near it. They have already done
so, and have moved to Blackburn. One
subtext editor visited the nearest working wind farm, at Caton
Moor, on a fine afternoon a few days ago. Couples were walking their dogs
among the turbine towers and admiring the views. Standing directly under the
rotor of a turbine, there was an audible whoosh as each blade passed
overhead, and the sound of the machinery could also be heard; but a short
distance away it was difficult to detect any noise at all, other than that of
the wind. (It might be different if you were inside a building with your ears
sheltered from the wind.) According
to the web site of Enercon, the German
manufacturers of the University's turbine, their latest machines are
direct-drive, in other words they have no gearbox, which removes one possible
source of noise. Enercon also claim that their
blade design is more efficient and quieter than those of their competitors.
Certainly the blades of the Hazelrigg machine are
noticeably different from those of the Caton Moor
turbines, which are made by RE Power, another German manufacturer. But
it has to be recognised that some people don't like wind turbines, full stop,
and no arguments will persuade them to love them. (See
also letters) ***************************************************** DEBATE WITH ADITYA CHAKRABORTTY OF THE GUARDIAN On
23 October the Department of Sociology hosted a public debate called
'Capitalism is in crisis - so where are the sociologists?',
chaired by Professor John Urry. The guest of honour and opening speaker was Aditya Chakrabortty, who, as
well as being the Guardian's economics leader writer, also writes a weekly
column in the paper on economic matters. In April he published an article
which noted that, while the economic crisis had also been a crisis for the
discipline of economics, in that few economists had seen the crisis coming,
the non-economic social and political sciences had utterly failed to offer
any alternative analyses. Rather than seizing the opportunity to change the
terms in which capitalism is understood, and thereby perhaps changing
capitalism itself, he argued, political scientists and sociologists had
simply continued their insular disciplinary debates as if the crisis hadn't
happened at all (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/16/economics-has-failed-us-alternative-voices). The article,
he told a packed room in his opening talk, provoked the most communications
of any he has written. Three weeks after it was published he used his column
to summarise the responses he had received. On the one hand, public letters
from individual social scientists and responses from their professional
bodies had tended to be defensive and dismissive of the charge (though the
examples of good work on the causes of the crisis that they cited were the
exceptions that proved the rule). On the other hand, private communications
had largely been in agreement with his overall charge: that while capitalism
foundered, the vast majority of sociologists were simply continuing their
research on topics like 'the real-ale industry, or whether Asian cricketers
lose out by not going for a post-match pint' (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/07/academics-cant-answer-criticism-analysis). The
short responses that followed Chakrabortty, from
local sociologists Bob Jessop, Andrew Sayer, Sylvia Walby and Bronislaw
Szerszynski, each in different ways illustrated how sociology might expand
our understanding of the financial crisis, through lenses such as political
economy, gender and socio-metabolic analysis. It was clear from these
responses that one aim of inviting Chakrabortty to
the University was to show him that Lancaster Sociology, at least, could not
easily be dismissed as insular and irrelevant. But, perhaps more
interestingly, they and the discussion that followed did not simply try to
rebut Chakrabortty's thesis about the state of the
discipline in general, but if anything reinforced it and made it seem even
more significant. What
seemed to emerge in the lively discussion that followed was a broadly shared
analysis of a slow crisis in the public university itself, in which, under
the growing pressure of narrowly defined career structures, performance
reviews and research assessment, professional social scientists have become
increasingly oriented either to inward-looking contributions to what Chakrabortty amusingly termed 'the Journal of Niche
Studies', or to the production of narrowly instrumental knowledge that might
be used to help society run more smoothly. The debate left the strong
impression that Chakrabortty's public rebuke of
sociology had done it a favour. In pointing out its disappointing response to
such a momentous crisis, he had given occasion for sociology to recall the
richer understanding of its calling that animated the early pioneers of the
discipline: as involving a normative responsibility to offer large-scale
analyses of society and its travails, and to shape visions of its possible
futures. Relatedly, on 7 November Occupy Lancaster and
the University's Economics Society, with the support of the MA in Leadership
for Sustainability, are holding a debate on the ability of economics to get
us out of the current crisis, involving external speakers and members of the
Economics Department. The event will be held in the Management School's
Lecture Theatre 4 Break-out Area, from 2.00 till 5.30 - see http://m.facebook.com/events/534029559944430/. ***************************************************** RECITAL
BY DEMIDENKO The
University's International Concert season began on 25 October with a powerful
performance by the pianist Nikolai Demidenko. This
was the first solo recital on the University's new Steinway concert grand,
and in his programme of works by Schumann, Chopin and Mussorgsky Demidenko explored the piano's capabilities to the full. The
recital opened with Carnival Scenes from Vienna by Schumann - Schumann wrote
most of this work at carnival time in Vienna, where he was staying in 1839
whilst wooing Clara Wieck, his future wife, and
engaging in a legal dispute with her father, who was his former teacher.
Despite these distractions, Schumann captured the carnival atmosphere very
effectively in this five-movement suite; and Demidenko
relayed it to the audience well - especially in the third-movement scherzino. The
second item was the piano sonata no 3 by Chopin. Once again, the most
effective of the movements was the scherzo, which Demidenko
played delicately and at lightning speed, as indicated by the markings molto vivace and leggiero. The
final work in the programme, after the interval, was the suite Pictures at an
Exhibition, by Mussorgsky. The exhibition in question was of paintings by the
composer's friend Viktor Hartmann, who had died suddenly in 1873 aged only
39. Mussorgsky lent several pictures from his own collection and helped to
organise the exhibition, which took place at the Academy of Fine Arts in St
Petersburg in 1874. Fired by this, Mussorgsky wrote the suite, the individual
movements of which refer to works by Hartmann shown in the exhibition. They
are linked by a promenade theme, which depicts the viewer walking slowly
through the exhibition. The pianist played the suite in the original version,
for piano solo. It is now often heard played by a full orchestra, most commonly
in the orchestration by Ravel. Demidenko is able to achieve ff, fff, or even more, with little apparent effort. Sometimes
he did so at points in the music where such volume seemed unnecessary, or
even inappropriate. Such is his strength that by the time he reached the
encores, a few of the strings of the piano were beginning to go noticeably
out of tune. This
recital was a highly dramatic start to what promises to be a very interesting
season of concerts. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear
subtext, The
wind turbine is now partly erected on Hazelrigg
Lane and even without its sails up [note: this letter is dated 19 October],
it is clear that it is environmentally damaging, representing a hideous
eyesore for miles around: I could see
it from the Lancaster-Clitheroe (Trough) road,
looming very large indeed. When
it was originally palmed off on us by management, I seem to remember it being
claimed that it would produce 1/3 of the university's energy needs but in the
latest LUText that has been reduced to '11-17%'. We
have still not been told, however (at least as far as I can recall) at what
percentage of the contraption's claimed capacity it would need to operate to
produce even that. I think we should be told, as most of these things only
achieve about ¼ of what was claimed for them; we should certainly keep an eye
on its performance. Yours
aye, Dr
Richard Austen-Baker, Senior Lecturer in Law
[The
editors understand that the reduction from 1/3 to 11-17% of the University's
energy needs has occurred because the University gained planning consent for
only one turbine instead of the two that were originally proposed.] ******** Dear
subtext, I
noted towards the end of your report of the recent Senate meeting that 'some
of the discussion centred on the idea of the University establishing more of
a presence in Lancaster centre, possibly at the Storey Institute'. I am
tempted to suggest that the university not only establish a presence at the
Storey but that they start to run short courses to encourage the public to
engage with HE. They could call it 'Open Studies'... Paula
Foster, formerly of the Department of Continuing Education ******** Dear
subtext, Following
your inclusion of an item on Ian Parker's suspension in the last subtext, I
am forwarding the following update. This can also be found on the asylumonline link included below. Best
wishes, Hilary
Hinds, English and Creative Writing MMU
has now decided that a disciplinary hearing will go ahead on the two charges
that Ian Parker 'constructed and widely distributed an email, which intended
to undermine the credibility of a Head of Department' and that 'distribution
of this email constitutes a failure to comply with a reasonable management
instruction'. This unbelievable decision is despite local, national and
international calls for the suspension of Ian Parker from MMU to be lifted.
Not only is Ian prohibited from discussing his case with colleagues in the
university, entering university premises or accessing his work email, but he
is prohibited from speaking publicly about the charges. Not only is the
response of MMU to these charges grossly disproportionate, but MMU continues
to respond to newspaper inquiries with the insidious claim that external
speculation around the reasons for the suspension is 'wholly inaccurate',
thus damaging Ian's reputation. As a first step to repairing his reputation,
and in line with Ian's own call for all documents relating to the case to be
released publicly, we call on MMU to at least state openly what the charges
are. Anyone
who would like to support him could now simply demand of MMU that they tell
the truth. Letters to this effect can be sent to the Vice-Chancellor John
Brooks (john.brooks@mmu.ac.uk) and the Head of the Department of Psychology
Christine Horrocks (c.horrocks@mmu.ac.uk). These
messages can be copied as messages of solidarity to the MMU UCU chair Pura Ariza (p.ariza@mmu.ac.uk)
and it is imperative that, at the same time, support should be stepped up to
support Christine Vié (c.vie@mmu.ac.uk) the MMU UCU
vice-chair who has been singled out for redundancy. Details
about the case, including letters of support and the petition link, are at http://www.asylumonline.net/ian-parkers-suspension-from-manchester-metropolitan-university/. ***************************************************** Dear
subtext, Further
to Michela Masci's letter
(Subtext 94), while studying at Lancaster in 2011 I too accidentally
discovered that the library clears out large numbers of books, department by
department. Behind the service counter (now gone) I could see a trolley full
of books with a paper sign saying which department they had come from. On
enquiring I was told that the library constantly reviews the value of each
book according to how many times it has been issued in recent years. Those
deemed 'not worth keeping' are offered to a second-hand book dealer, and any
which the dealer doesn't want are then sent to be shredded. According to the
staff member explaining this, the library will not offer 'unwanted' books to
students or staff, and will not hold a 10p/50p sale (like in a public
library). Perhaps those are the book dealer's terms - s/he will only take
unwanted books in return for having the first and only crack at them. It's
frustrating; on the 3rd Floor there's a superb, and expensive, book, in
excellent condition, concerned with the trading history of a prominent
company which interests me. As it will probably never be issued to many
readers, its days at Lancaster are presumably numbered. (name
and address provided) ***************************************************** The
editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order)
of: Sam Clark, Mark Garnett, George Green, Ian Paylor,
David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden. |
|
|
|