| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** ‘Truth: lies open to all’ ***************************************************** Issue 126 11 December 2014 ***************************************************** Fortnightly during term time. All letters, contributions and comments to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but will consider requests for publication with the name withheld. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. Back issues and subscription details can be found at www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. CONTENTS: editorial, pensions, a theft most heinous, a premature move, storytime, bring down those shields, from the cutting room floor, change at the top, Anthony Marsella, voting, concert review, until the next time, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL When your subtext correspondent was walking round the student rally against fees and rent rises last week, listening to (and perhaps even making) speeches about the history and impact of the rampant commercialisation of higher education in the UK, one thing was clear: this was the very antithesis of the apathy students are often accused of. As the rally progressed, however, it also became clear that some familiar faces were missing; students who your correspondent knew cared about the bigger issues involved, and would have expected to see with megaphone in hand, denouncing what might be seen as damaging changes implemented by the university management without adequate consultation. As subtext readers found out later in the day from our newsflash, some of these students were busy taking their politics upstairs… well, almost as far as D floor, to the part of C floor housing Admissions and the International Office. What happened next is documented (mainly from the students’ point of view) on the occupation Facebook page (www.facebook.com/pages/Lancaster-University-Occupation/1495233677404136) and on Twitter under #OccupyLancaster. Briefly, the occupiers were denied access by security staff to toilet facilities, food and water, and told they would not be allowed to return if they left. So far, so standard. By dint of an ingenious mechanism involving ethernet cables and knots, they were able to haul up food and water provided by sympathisers in Alexandra Square. As for their ablutionary needs… well, best not talk about that, but suffice it to say that the protesters felt their human rights were being infringed, and onlookers worried that things could get messy. On a more serious note, the occupiers issued seven demands to the university management:
The Management apparently refused to negotiate or discuss these demands initially, threatened the students with a court injunction at 9am the following morning if they had not left, and also said they would send the police to arrest any non-students among the occupation with a view to charging them with aggravated trespass. However, the following morning the occupiers received the news that Fiona Aiken, the University Secretary, was en route to negotiate with them, after some delays and changes to the originally scheduled time. The outcome of this negotiation was one concession, not on the original list, and a promise of no legal action: As the students state on their Facebook page, "the university management have agreed to a long term dialogue with the student union and other student representatives including from our group, in order to reconsider rent and fee hikes. This will be documented by student media, so as to be transparent.” This was communicated to staff by the university management in slightly terser tones: "The student occupation of University House has come to an end peacefully. The University will continue the dialogue about tuition fees and rents with the students’ union.” What could concerned subtext readers take from this? First, the university management appears to have learnt from the case of the George Fox Six (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/198127.article), and has decided that criminalising students is not only bad publicity but could lead to further protests and an increase in support from other students and from staff. This is borne out by the situation at Warwick University, where students were subjected to CS gassing and threats of tasering by police, but continued and have now expanded their occupation of a university building while attracting international media attention. Second, it may just be that someone on D Floor has finally realised that they can’t just go on pushing through unpopular changes without at least pretending to consult the affected groups. Meanwhile, there is a continued security presence on campus (for instance, private security guards outside the graduation ceremonies in the Great Hall). What of the other demands? The subtext collective feels that some of these will resonate with readers (not just no. 3), and will perhaps galvanise staff and other students to be more critical of university policies that may have damaging long term impacts. And just as importantly, we hope that readers will hold the management to account and ensure that they keep to their promise of dialogue at the very least. For the time being, subtext is pleased to see the University extending an offer to enter negotiations, but would encourage staff to email in with their thoughts, particularly those caught in the thick of it when the occupation ensued. ***************************************************** EMPTY THREATS You’ll have noticed that the University of Lancaster threatened to make staff members who participate in the marking and assessment boycott personally liable if anyone raised claims of damage against the university as a consequence of their participation. LU is one of very few universities who made this threat. The legal foundation for this is very dubious indeed, with few, old and very shaky legal UK precedents. It may well be in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also an outright attack on the right of academic staff to take strike action, or action short of a strike as in this case. In short, it is an empty threat and a clearly political, anti-union act. Ironically, this threatening response to the marking and assessment boycott coincided with the launch of our new People Strategy 2020, which aims to retain and attract high quality staff, and ‘make our staff feel valued, involved and fulfilled in the work that they do’. Well, the university may have to think again about how it goes about trying to achieve that. Moreover, the response to the marking boycott and the people strategy launch also coincided with the latest installment of the staff satisfaction poll. The results should make for interesting reading this time. On Friday November 28th, the Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor held an open meeting for all staff to report on progress with the overall strategy of the university. The new people strategy was also presented. The VC did volunteer some comments on the ongoing pension conflict, including the claim that the University of Lancaster is lobbying UUK to change its position. He also wondered why the 2011 settlement has already broken and what the long term vision should be now, and suggested that whilst final salary may be off the table there is room for movement in the negotiations. However, he did not mention the individual liability threat, in spite of a question having been tabled in advance by Lancaster UCU. Questions from the audience about this put the VC on the defensive. He emphasised that LU had only said they might make individuals personally liable, not that they certainly would. He also tried to paint a picture of the Lancaster line as reasonable since it had only threatened to dock 20% of our pay, and not 100% as some universities. But a threat of potential action is still a threat, and the fact that the position on pay docking could have been worse doesn’t change that. Ultimately, he refused to withdraw the threatening option of personal liability. This is still a tool on his box. And so the University of Lancaster remains one of very few UK universities to take this harsh and dubious line. If pension negotiations fail and the boycott has to be resumed in January, we may hear this threat again. ***************************************************** MIDNIGHT RAID ON THE LUSU BUILDING As mentioned in our editorial, the University has descended into Winter Palace levels of security, just in case a plucky group of students get any bright ideas and try to come back for more. Reportedly, individuals external to the operations of University House are being asked to provide proof of both identity and timetabled business. Doors into various open-plan offices, usually wide open, are now firmly secured by a card lock. Suffice to say, occupiers don’t knock, and they don’t ring through to the relevant extension and ask to get in from outside. Understandably, the mood on C-Floor is still somewhat skittish. One of the fears expressed by staff and enforced by university security was over potential property theft. Indeed, occupiers were not permitted to leave the building until staff members were satisfied that nothing had been stolen. Needless to say, the outcome was satisfactory. However, the insistence made by security over property don’t quite square with their actions the following night. On Thursday(4th December) evening a small group of LUSU officers, painting banners which they intended to drop from their building the following afternoon, were spotted by Security. At around 8PM, a security guard entered the second floor of the LUSU building and asked the officers some seemingly innocuous questions about the banners, particularly the one that bore use of profanity. At around 11:30PM that night, one of the officers returned from Furness Bar to his office on the second floor to ring a taxi, and was satisfied that the banners remained in place. There was to be no such satisfaction the following morning, when one of the banners was no-where to be seen. After a day of frantic searching, members of LUSU contacted security to ask if they knew anything. Seemingly blasé about the affair, the Head of Security admitted to removing the banner (the materials for which were paid for with Union resources) for profanity in a public space, without having; a) alerted officers to any kind of issue while he knew they were in the building, b) letting anyone know that they were about to enter the building after hours to remove property, c) letting anyone know that they had entered their building after hours to remove property until they were asked, and d) understanding that card-locked doors generally don’t tend to lead to public spaces. This is undoubtedly a wholly hypocritical disregard for and dismissive attitude towards the operations of the Students’ Union, as well as for its political autonomy and right to hold management to account. A temperature check indicates that security’s actions aren’t likely to have any conciliatory effects on officers who are reportedly growing tired of the University attempting to hold them accountable over the actions of autonomously organised students, and leaves some questioning whether a state of paranoia is on the cards for the foreseeable future. ***************************************************** ENGINEERING STARTS TO MOVE The move of the Engineering Department to its new building, between the Environment Centre and the Management School, started this week. A number of heavy-move trucks were to be seen lined up outside the ‘old’ Engineering Building at the beginning of the week, and some items of heavy equipment have been loaded up and transported. But even from outside the hoardings and fences that still surround the new building, it is plain to see that the building is quite some way from being completed. Equipment that can actually be unloaded from a truck and taken into the building cannot be placed in its final position. It will have to be lifted and moved again, at least once, and possibly more than once, at considerable cost. As with many construction projects, the project plan for the new building has slipped by some months since its composition. The move was originally intended to take place over the summer, which would have been the obvious time to do it. Moving part way through an academic year is bound to be disruptive, especially for an engineering department, where projects and practical work using large machines form an essential part of the subject. It is hard to see why the move has been started in week 10, at a time when term hasn’t ended and the destination building is some way from being finished. It looks as if this is going to cost a good deal of additional money and cause a lot of extra trouble and stress for all concerned. ***************************************************** MY DAY OUT A contributed article by an occupier. This week some friends and I went on a jolly expedition to University House. We were hoping to hunt for the elusive creature known as the umag. Legend has it that the umag lives high up on D-floor in an office guarded by swipe-card machines. The umag will venture out thrice a term to feast on the hopes and dreams of students. In order to placate the beast, the townsfolk give yearly offerings of gold. But recently these offerings didn’t seem enough. The umag had been heard, in whispers, planning to ask more of the students. At noon we set off on our expedition. Heroically into University House we walked, handing out biscuits to perplexed looking staff as we went. When we reached the footholds of the umag’s kingdom, we deemed it wise to make camp. Placing our flag betwixt two windows, we cleared a space to settle in for the night. Suddenly we heard rumblings from below. The guards were coming! The umag was aware of our presence! We hurriedly secured our defenses, laid out our provisions of hummus and bread on a table, and braced ourselves for the worst. We were confronted, however, not by the hideous beast, but by several smiling security guards and a rather irritable secretary. “You really can’t do this” we were told. But we really could. By evening spirits were high and bladders were full. How could we have been so foolish as to think that the fearsome beast would allow us to protest and assemble with water and toilets! But they, too, had underestimated how prepared and resourceful we were. By the end of our evening guided meditation everyone was feeling jollier than ever - there was even talk of cups of tea! As the beast, again, sent its minions to pester us, we began to understand that it was not merely enough to be close to your enemy; you had to know them too. For hours we searched and searched until, at midday Thursday we arrived at the incantation that would allow us freedom and cast the umag asunder. I will always fondly remember our day out. Some will say the umag was the beast that got away, but I disagree, for in my pocket, I carry a reminder that we won: a little video of their faces as we carried a bottle of urine out of the room. ***************************************************** SPECIAL REPORT: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MERELY POSH Following our editions in week 4 and 6 of this term, when we reported on the logo change, subtext has received several copies of the “Brand Narrative Research” report prepared for by Vanilla Research. Some arrived under a cloak of secrecy whilst others were thrust into our hands with the cry of ‘Have you read this!’ Well, we have now. Some of us have been at the University of Lancaster for many years now, and we are proud to belong to it. We think it's a really good university, and one of the best things about it is not only that it’s friendly but that a relatively high proportion of people work in a collegial way, without airs and graces or outsize egos - both of which get in the way of good research and teaching. And although league tables shouldn’t be taken too seriously, we can’t deny that we are proud that Lancaster does better than the majority of universities in the Russell self-appointed political lobbying Group. We at Lancaster know you don’t have to be posh or ‘established’ (old) to be good. Doing relatively well on widening participation is part of that. Another way of putting this is that for most of its life the university has focused on the good without getting diverted into the pursuit of the merely posh. (Posh means that which is associated with high social class. Or if you want to put it in posh academese, it means ‘having symbolic capital’) It’s not necessarily good: pronouncing ‘class’ with a long ‘a’ is no better than pronouncing it with a short a, but it immediately sends a message of superiority to uncritical thinkers. Yes, sometimes posh things may also be good (e.g. opera?), but not thanks to their poshness. How many of us have heard stories from posh universities of postgrads who are left to sink or swim by their supervisors, and where the most salient characteristics of professors are their absence from their departments and their disdain for teaching undergraduates? Now that neoliberalism has constructed a competitive market in higher education, Lancaster, like other universities, finds itself subject to pressures that threaten precisely its strengths in the internal goods of education. Given that children are born into a highly unequal society, inheriting vastly different amounts of economic and cultural capital according to the lottery of birth, it’s no surprise that academic performance in schools correlates with social class. So the competitive market for university places is far from a level playing field. Even so, 3 HEFCE reports have (2003, 2005, 2014) found that pupils going to university from lower-performing schools tend to outperform those from higher-performing schools with the same A-level grades. But now there are worrying signs that we are allowing the pursuit of the posh to override the pursuit of the good, though no doubt it will be defended in terms of the need to raise our admission grades so we can climb higher up the greasy league table pole. One piece of evidence is the “Brand Narrative Research” report, commissioned by the University, from Vanilla Research, which was used to justify the decision to replace our inspiring swoosh with a boring shield. subtext has seen the report and can tell you that it is an astonishingly shoddy piece of work. As an undergraduate dissertation it might not even scrape a pass. (If our managers disagree, let them make it public so we can all make our own minds up.) The research “represents the initial findings from a series of group discussions with Year 13 students, exploring their views on universities in general, and Lancaster University in particular”. It was based on a “series of four group discussions… held in May 2014, with students who had applied to Top 10 and Russell Group universities for entry in September 2014 (or deferred to 2015).” The locations were selected “to cover a range of proximity to Lancaster, and a mix of state and independent schools.” The sample of 26 students came from: an independent school in Yorkshire; a Sixth Form College in Hampshire; a group of independent school students in Cheshire; a mixed group of state and independent school students in South West London. The report doesn’t say how many of the 26 came from each school (zero marks for methodology), but it looks very much like far more than 7% (the national percentage) were from independent schools. One wonders what the consultants thought the appropriate population was for their ‘sample’. Is the University giving a new meaning to ‘widening participation’? In their defence of the geographical inappropriateness of their ‘sample’, the Vanilla consultants come up with this stunning bit of illogic: “The individual choices are admittedly significantly affected by the location of the groups – for instance holding a group in Newcastle may well have resulted in more of a northern bias to some of the choices – but the four groups were reasonably spread across the country, and so in aggregate the picture is a good illustration of the breadth of these students’ preferences.” Can anyone make sense of that? The sample provides a good representation of the sample? The consultants found that “Lancaster does not feature on their radar”, though Durham does. Surprise, surprise. Durham can use its poshness to offset its distance from the south where most students from public schools live. But like many universities, Lancaster has long had a strongly regional catchment area for UK students, so it’s no surprise that many of the students in the sample didn’t know anyone who had been here. The report tells us that one student – presumably not one doing geography - said Lancaster was “in an obscure location”, and that “nobody really knows much about the area.” Well there’s metropolitan provincialism for you, and the arrogance of ignorance. (Excuse me, I must nip out to feed my racing pigeons and the whippet, now where are my clogs?) School leavers choose not just universities but classed environments, so they tend to choose places that fit their class dispositions and enable them to feel comfortable, and this may not correspond to league table ranking. Does the University’s acceptance of the report mean it aims to correct the respondents’ mistake in confusing the posh with the good, or to persuade them that we’re actually posh? The adoption of the public school aesthetic of the shield suggests the latter. It is also hardly a surprise to learn from the report that independent school students don’t see inclusivity [widening participation, social mix, etc.] as an issue, as it isn’t one for them and they’re unlikely to want to mix with their class others anyway, just as many state school students don’t fancy Oxbridge because of its top heavy social mix. Public schools teach entitlement, not class awareness. Interestingly there were indications that some of the sample wondered if Lancaster’s relatively good performance on inclusivity might exclude them! This is the familiar phenomenon of those who have benefited from a lifetime of economic and cultural positive discrimination in their favour complaining about other people getting a bit of it for a change. (The government estimated that “state schools received revenue and capital funding of £6,350 per pupil in 2012-13, compared to independent day schools, which received £11,510.“ Lord Nash, House of Lords, 4th December 2013. He also added: “7% of the population go to private schools yet they take more than half the top jobs and more than 40% of the places in our top universities.”) Similarly, the finding that this particular selection of students was not impressed by our swoosh logo is likely to be an effect of their unthinking equation of the posh and the good. We might wonder if a different sample, 93% of which were from state schools (and from our main catchment area in the north and midlands) would be so impressed by shields. The decision to replace the swoosh with a badge was supposed to be evidence-based, but a cynic might wonder whether the consultants’ report was an example of policy-based evidence. The second indication of the university’s switch to pursuing the posh rather than the good was the announcement in a meeting of departmental admissions tutors that the university had contacted 639 independent schools about what Lancaster had to offer. The meeting was told that one Headteacher replied that they advised their pupils not to apply to any university north of Birmingham! One might wonder what Alan Milburn, our incoming Chancellor and Chair of the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, might make of all this. Back in 2012, Milburn said public schools continued to have a “stranglehold” on the country’s top jobs.” Last month the Commission’s Elitist Britainreport, which attracted widespread comment in the media, attacked the domination of top jobs by the rich and public-schooled. As the Commission says; “social diversity should be a national mission – class is as important as ethnicity or gender”, and “a national effort is needed to break open Britain’s elite.” Quite. The management may say that when it comes to brands it’s not what we think that matters but what the punters think, but universities are supposed to challenge, not indulge, confused thinking, and indeed to speak truth to power. Part of that is distinguishing the good from the merely posh. The university should emphatically reject arguments to curry favour with public schools at the expense of its widening participation commitment. ***************************************************** LU TEXT LOST AND FOUND Every Friday, staff and students receive the latest edition of LU Text, which is a satirical, edgier spin-off from subtext. In each issue, we are treated to a list of instances in which Sir Cary Cooper has been featured in the local and national media. Occasionally the work of other academics gets a mention too. Compiling all of this stuff is a thankless and laborious task, and subtext appreciates that it is perfectly possible for the odd article to slip through the cracks. The subtext drones have therefore opted to devote some resources to a new regular feature, picking up some of the pieces from LU Text's cutting room floor. First up, Dr. Simon Mabon (PPR) and Ms. Laura Clayson (LUSU President) were featured in the Guardian last week discussing the government's latest proposals to tackle the breeding of extremism at universities: www.theguardian.com/education/2014/dec/02/anti-terror-bill-making-radical-ideas-crime-campus And, the University of Lancaster was included in several national reports on the spate of occupations, but received special focus on page 3 of last week's Lancaster Guardian: www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/education/anger-mounts-over-fee-and-rent-increases-at-lancaster-university-1-6987154 ***************************************************** WHERE DID THEY COME FROM, WHERE WILL THEY GO? subtext understands that interviews for the new Dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology are underway. We have no knowledge of the candidates or their backgrounds, but now, we feel, is the time to raise a few searching questions of our recent senior appointments. As subtext reported last June, there has been an almost complete change of blood at the top. Professor McEnery, who rose through the local ranks to become Dean of the FASS, was replaced by Professor Guy, formerly of Manchester University. Professor Gattrell, who rose through the local ranks to become the Dean of the FHM, was replaced by Professor Johnson, formerly of Warwick University. Dr. Brown, who rose through the local ranks to become Dean of UG Studies, was replaced by Professor Huttly, formerly of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, in the newly created post of Pro-VC (Education). Professor MacMillan, who rose through the local ranks to become Pro-VC (Research), was replaced by Professor Guy, formerly of Dundee University. We could go on, but the readers' boredom implores us to get to the point. The term of office for Pro-VC positions is, according to the University's Charter and Statutes, four years - renewable once. For Faculty Deans it is five years, also renewable once. Traditionally, those who finish their terms of office are returned to their old day jobs at departmental level, as we've seen with pretty much all postholders who have recently stepped down. However, with a whole raft of external appointments, the question is; where will they go at the end of their tenure? Is a place reserved for them in the relevant academic departments at the end of their tenure, or can we expect a further downsizing on any semblance of democracy? After all, the Provost post was created for and filled by Professor Chetwynd, conveniently at the end of her term as Pro-Vice Chancellor. Perhaps we are about to lose the small comfort of knowing that postholders, if unpopular, will at least be gone soon. ***************************************************** ALUMNUS NEWS subtext exists to: be an alternative source of information about University governance, politics, and the current activities of our much lamented former Marketing Director, Anthony Marsella. Subscribers will be delighted to learn that Mr. Marsella continues to bring the benefits of his experience to the grateful citizens of Thailand and their economy. His ‘hotel’ in Chiang Mai (viewable at www.thailannaresort.com, a website which sadly seems to have removed most of the things that made it such a delight when we first saw it, in particular its ‘in-room companion service’, for which the English language has a number of other phrases) continues to flourish and gets a ‘thumbs up’ from at least one middle-aged male punter, (‘Nice to see you again, Mr. Glitter’). We also recommend the marketing guru’s slick video package for a more detailed tour of the resort: tinyurl.com/mn2xl6s The real source of joy for subtext subscribers continues to be Mr. Marsella’s literary output. Not content with bringing the ancient Egyptian Empire to vivid life in his first two novels, he has now blessed his readers with another opus, set in modern day Thailand. It features some portentously heavy-duty politics mixed with some light titillation. The literary style is, as always, a thing of singular delight. The drone in the subtext bunker who was tasked with reading through ‘The Thai Mistress’ to find some typical examples of Mr. Marsella’s style for your edification has now mostly stopped screaming and should be back on light duties in a month or so. We suggest that interested subscribers should go to www.amazon.co.uk/The-Thai-Mistress-Anthony-Marsella-ebook/dp/B0097QFU62 and click on the picture of the young woman. Pick a chapter at random and enjoy. Amazon has a single positive review for the work. From someone who signs herself ‘siriporn8’. ‘Nuff said. ***************************************************** DEMOCRACY UPDATE subtext readers will be aware that the rules for compiling the electoral register have changed. From this year, it is no longer possible for the "head of the household" to register people - all individuals need to register individually. On campus this means that, although the university authorities (as "head of the household") are free to inform the electoral registration officer exactly who lives on campus, and where, only those students who explicitly register to vote will be eligible to do so in May's General Election. The effects have certainly been spectacular. Last year, when the university was able to register them en bloc, around 4400 students were registered to vote on the Lancaster University campus. This year, so far, it seems that just over 400 have registered to vote individually. The City Council promises to write to students individually in the New Year, encouraging them to register. subtext hopes their letters will not suffer the same fate as the TV Licence reminders sent to students some weeks ago, piles of which remain, unread and unloved, in our porters' lodges. ***************************************************** BRILLIANT PIANIST PERFORMS IN THE GREAT HALL The recital in the Great Hall on 27 November was given by an up-and-coming star performer, the young pianist Yevgeny Sudbin. Aged just 34, he has performed in many of the world’s most famous concert venues and with many of the best orchestras and conductors. His CD of piano works by Scriabin has received a number of awards, and was described as ‘a disc in a million’ by the prestigious magazine Gramophone - so it was a disappointment that no works by Scriabin featured in the programme for his Lancaster recital. The first half of the concert demonstrated a wide range of styles of piano writing. Sudbin opened with two short sonatas by Domenico Scarlatti. Although born in Italy (in 1685, coincidentally the year of the birth of both Handel and JS Bach), Scarlatti spent the most significant part of his working life in Madrid, where we was music teacher to Princess Maria Barbara. Many of his enormous output of 555 keyboard sonatas were written for the princess. Although brief, they are astonishingly varied, musically they are highly idiosyncratic, and taken together they form a taxing group of exercises. Sudbin played two contrasted sonatas, the first quiet and reflective, and the second more typical of the composer with spectacular keyboard fireworks. They were followed by six bagatelles by Beethoven, representing the composer at his most quirky, and the 3rd ballade by Chopin. In the bagatelles, Sudbin caught perfectly Beethoven’s mixture of apparently banal music with remarkably original writing. The Chopin ballade is in the composer’s own totally different style, but Sudbin captured this expertly. In the second half of the concert, Sudbin turned to the music of his native Russia. He opened with three witty preludes by Shostakovich, which were followed by three preludes by Rachmaninov. The showpiece to conclude the concert was the 7th sonata by Prokofiev, a really exciting, virtuosic piece. Sudbin carried this off with terrific verve. Surprisingly, the Rachmaninov preludes seemed slightly unprepared. The following week, Sudbin played the identical programme in London’s Wigmore Hall. This was broadcast on Radio 3, and again the Rachmaninov preludes didn’t quite come off. However, as in his Lancaster recital, Sudbin ended with two encores, both by Scriabin, and it became clear why his disc of Scriabin works had been given top awards. He seems to have got under the skin of this mystical composer, whose compositions were banned from the BBC by Adrian Boult, who in the early 1930s described them as ‘evil music’. At about the same time another critic, Gerald Abraham, described Scriabin as ‘a sad pathological case, erotic and egotistic to the point of mania.’ But more recently he has been rehabilitated, being described by Roger Scruton as ‘one of the greatest of modern composers’ - although Scruton is not best known as a music critic and his views may not be entirely reliable. ***************************************************** END OF TERM ROUNDUP As is usual at this time of year, subtext likes to reflect on the events and personalities of the last term. The September Senate was devoted to a review of the university's strategic development and the priorities for the coming year. The good news was that we are to recruit an additional 50 new academics to celebrate the university's 50th anniversary. The bad news? Lancaster continues to slip in the national league tables. Not by much, but enough to ensure that we are no longer 'Number 1 in the North West' for overall student satisfaction. That much coveted accolade now belongs to the University of Chester. Lancaster will not take this lying down. The university will 'drill down' into the NSS data to find the departments responsible for this catastrophe, who will then be duly fracked into compliance with the Strategic Plan. Before term began we were delighted to hear that at last the university is to have a proper logo, in keeping with our position as an institution whose chief aspiration is to do better in whatever league is currently in vogue. The new logo (a sensitive redesign of the shield in Lancaster's original coat-of-arms) was widely and warmly welcomed, apart from snide carping from the usual malcontents. However, in keeping with our tradition of thrift, we're still keeping the original shield. And also the swoosh logo, the one that apparently has made Lancaster look like an FE college for the last 30 odd years (the brand police ought to swoop on the Students’ Union shop at some point - they’re still selling cuff-links bearing the swoosh). With three logos to call upon that puts us comfortably in the top 10 of the THES Universities With More Than One Logo table. The number 3 clearly carries great power and significance for university management. So much so that just before Intro Week it was announced that the Principal of Pendle College would also be taking on the vacant principalships of Bowland and Lonsdale 'on an interim basis' in addition to his own college. As we near the end of term, those principalships have still not been advertised. But perhaps the powers-that-be are awaiting the outcome of the Colleges Review established by Council and due to report shortly. Council's newly-found interest in the college system is surely to be welcomed, as is its unique approach to this task. Objectivity and the avoidance of preconception have been guaranteed by ensuring the membership of the review group is largely composed of individuals with little or no knowledge of how our college system works. There have been surveys of students and staff, numerous focus groups and expeditions to see how other universities run their colleges. We can confidently expect that the Review's conclusions will be based on the most up-to-date evidence available. And that the number 3 will figure in there somewhere. October saw the start of a marking boycott as part of UCU's campaign against the proposed changes to the USS pension scheme. This clearly caught employers off-guard, and their reactions varied considerably. Some decided to wait and see what would happen while others threatened 100% pay deductions for anyone who took part in the action. Lancaster management's response was to announce that there would be maximum pay docking but 75% of this would be immediately returned as ex-gratia payments. But in case we thought they were going soft they also threatened legal action against individuals taking part in the boycott if the university was sued for failing to deliver to its students. The assessment boycott has since been suspended but that threat still stands. November's Senate meeting discussed the pensions issue and the university's contingency plans if the marking boycott went ahead. In contrast to the aggressive tone of communications to staff, the VC sought to strike a conciliatory note, indicating that Lancaster had its doubts about the basis for the proposed pension changes. In this dispute, 'the university was not the enemy' (but the legal threat was not withdrawn). The other notable development from this Senate was the coded announcement that the long-discussed Lancaster-Guangwai campus project was now dead in the water. All through this term concern has been expressed about Lancaster's vulnerability to shifts in the HE market. We've seen a significant drop in postgraduate applications (particularly in FASS) and those from international students. There's also the student cost-of-living issue highlighted by LUSU, which fears that this will affect future recruitment. So the University Council thought it would be helpful to announce a 5% increase in PG and international student fees, and a 2.5% rent hike for campus accommodation. Surprisingly, this did not go down well with students, who showed their discontent by occupying part of University House for 24 hours. So as this term, rather more eventful than most, draws to an end, we can contemplate what may lie ahead. If the national pension negotiations do not result in an agreement we can expect a resumption of the marking boycott. Added to this could be a new wave of student militancy if the university fails to respond adequately to their concerns. Then there are the new security measures being rushed through Parliament which would place on universities the legal duty of combating 'extremism'. According to Security Minister James Brokenshire, vice-chancellors who show insufficient enthusiasm in this regard would face imprisonment. But perhaps he need not worry too much about Lancaster. After all, his predecessor at the Home Office, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, is now a member of the University Council and will be on hand to advise the VC on where Lancaster's interests lie. We shall see. Until then, subtext would like to wish its readers the happiest of holidays and a most agreeable new year. (Oh, and let us know if you want to join the editorial collective next term. This stuff doesn’t write itself, and we welcome new blood and even the odd contribution.) ***************************************************** LETTER Thank you for drawing our attention to the university’s investments in three potentially sensitive areas: tobacco; arms; fossil fuels. I was recently invited to add my name to a petition protesting against this, and would have done so enthusiastically had it not been for the inclusion of fossil fuels. I need no convincing that we should be using fossil fuels increasingly sparingly - and research into such things as more efficient car engine design is contributing to this. But it seems to me unhelpful to lump fossil fuels in with two industries whose primary purpose is either to kill people or to encourage them to behave in ways that will hasten their death. Three separate petitions could attract more support and, who knows, might even convince the university to respond. Prof Peter J Diggle (Lancaster Medical School) ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, James Groves, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, Johnny Unger and Martin Widden.
|