| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** ‘Truth: lies open to all’ ***************************************************** Issue 133 14 May 2015 ***************************************************** 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, more on the survey, colleges, competition, cooperballs, intranet, roses, LUMS, democracy, shart attack, politics, musical interlude, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Over the years subtext has had occasion to remark on the apparent willingness of Senate to give away its powers and reduce its importance in the governance of the University. The surrender of its role in making senior appointments, the reduction of College representation, giving up its veto on closing degree schemes and sections of departments (which made possible the closure of Music without Senate approval) are but three examples that come to mind. It happened again at the April Senate (see report in subtext 132). Senate agreed to give up its right to elect its three representatives to the University Research Committee and to pass this onerous task over to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research. In future, Senate ‘representatives’ would be selected by the Research PVC and ‘approved’ by Senate (with the option of returning to a Senate-nominated pool of candidates should the body be unhappy with the choice, but is that likely to ever happen?). The ostensible reason for this was to address the gross gender imbalance on the current Research Committee (the website lists only one woman... who was elected by Senate). However, the discussion (such as it was) mostly centred on how to get ‘the right person’ sitting on this highly significant and influential body which, among other things, implements research policy, allocates research expenditure, oversees REF submission and is responsible for research ethics policy. And, let us not forget, it is actually a sub-committee of Senate. The Vice-Chancellor told Senate that he knew of many outstanding academics who could do the job splendidly but would not want to go through the messy and uncertain process of standing for election. His observation brings to mind Alexis de Tocqueville’s remark in his 1835 work, ‘Democracy in America’: “I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.” For de Tocqueville, this was a drawback of democracy, not a reason to ditch it altogether. Not so for our VC, for whom this appears to be a clinching argument. And Senate agreed with him, happy with the fact that in future its ‘representatives’ will be on the Research Committee through patronage rather than election. Clearly, we’ve come a long way in our thinking since 1835. Can we now expect the same line of reasoning to be used when it comes to selecting the Senate representatives on the University Council? ***************************************************** RATS AND STATS subtext hears of concerns about our interpretation of the staff survey results (subtext 132). Some unease centred on our combining the results from two questions; 'Have you felt discriminated against at work in the last 12 months?’ and 'Are you currently being harassed or bullied at work? It was pointed out to us that by combining the answers to these questions, it is conceivable that the 15% figure we quoted could contain a proportion of "double counting". Notwithstanding the fact that we were pointing out the problems of how ‘Likert scale’ surveys (combining those who ‘agree’ with those who ‘tend to agree’ in order to get an inflated rating) can be massaged to produce more attractive results, it also occurred to subtext that splitting questions on ‘bullying & harassment’ and ‘discrimination’ could serve to deflate / split negative scores and create a better impression. This prompted us to look at the staff survey again. In addition to the areas that the University has highlighted for improvement, using the methodology utilised and we assume approved of by management, the staff survey reveals the following. 46% of people do not feel valued by the University. 42% of people do not feel that the University is interested in their wellbeing. 32% of people do not think their HoD/manager helps to motivate them to give their best. 36% of people do not think their HoD/manager deals with poor performance effectively. 45% of people do not feel there are opportunities to feed their views upwards in the University. 44% of people do not where to find information about important decisions made at the University 46% of people think that recent changes have not been explained well. And finally: 59% (nearly 60% or clearly the majority of staff in the University - however you want to express this) of people in the staff survey stated that the process of change causes them concern and worry. At the risk of being accused of double-counting it would appear that there is a not inconsiderable number of people in the University who are deeply unhappy, frustrated and generally not in a very good place. We would respectively suggest that these folk are unlikely to be attending a focus group near you. ***************************************************** CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS It has been a mere three years since the last standardisation of the College constitutions, but in keeping with keeping up to speed with The Law and Compliance (these are the reasons muttered in justification, specifics have never been forthcoming; perhaps our subscribers could enlighten us), secretariat have laid down some newly amended templates. The changes essentially amount to cosmetic spring cleaning and do not, at first glance, appear to be a cause for concern – most commendable is that the Colleges are being permitted to set their own syndicate quoracies and additional membership detail. What is of interest, though, is the method in which the changes are being proposed. For, unchanged in the standardised constitutions, is section 5.1; “Amendments to the College Constitutions shall be made by the Syndicate and shall be subject to approval by the Senate.” Secretariat is sending its recommendations down to the Colleges for consideration and amendments. Shome mishtake, shurely? The aforementioned clause should surely place any changes to the constitution purely within the gift of the syndicates, and therefore it should almost certainly follow that the syndicates are well within their rights not to even dignify the proposals in the first place. subtext would be interested to hear of any College Officers eager to exercise their constitutional rights and see where it gets them. We shall see. ***************************************************** SPOT THE SWOOSH Spotted: Hundreds of chairs in the Great Hall - black with a bright red swoosh logo. Whatever are they going to do with all those chairs? In its previous issue (subtext 132), subtext reeled off a number of places where the swoosh is still taking pride of place, including; cufflinks in the SU shop, on materials sent to prospective students, on ‘shh’ signs outside exam halls and the Chaplaincy Centre roof. One concerned subscriber took these concerns straight to the top table, to inquire as to when such erroneous branding would be purged – we can confirm that the Head of Facilities has no plans at present to redevelop the roof of the Chaplaincy Centre. subtext is, however, heartened at the diligence of this subscriber, and invites others to follow suit and engage with a new competition: Spot the Swoosh. The best entry shall receive a very special pair of cufflinks in the post. Submissions to the usual address. ***************************************************** COOPERBALLS Distinguished Professor (now Sir) Cary Cooper is at it again. His latest cultural diktat (http://tinyurl.com/nd5tznv) is to suggest that emails, if engaged with after work or sent among colleagues co-inhabiting the same building, are detrimental to the wellbeing of staff. subtext recalls Distinguished Professor (now Sir) Cary Cooper espousing the dangers of the unhealthy work/life balance fostered by staff working through their lunch in the workplace at the expense of forming good working relationships outside of the office, and stacking this sound advice against the fact that the University doesn’t offer much in the way of eating spaces that allow staff to turn up with their own food (subtext 101). Thirty-two issues later and subtext has yet to see the University facilitating Distinguished Professor (now Sir) Cary Cooper’s good relationships; as such, we invite subscribers to either confirm or deny that Lancaster is facilitating Distinguished Professor (now Sir) Cary Cooper’s e-free wellness programme. ***************************************************** INTRANET IS INTFA DIG? In our previous issue (subtext 132), we put out a call for stories and anecdotes from any member of the Lancaster community involved in the development / consultation of the new staff intranet. We still welcome any information to the usual address. With some misgivings, the subtext collective has fired up the Ritchie-era PC that sits in the corner of the subtext warehouse to give the new intranet a whirl… and to our great surprise, we were positively surprised. While there is no doubt that some features need further development and some will presumably be gradually rolled out, while some features (such as LUSI online) really are rather unintuitive. But the general idea of collecting different services and information that staff need regularly in one place and tailoring them more closely to our needs than a simple list of links allows seems sound. ***************************************************** (CLASS) WAR OF THE ROSES Visitors to York during the Roses Weekend would have been struck by the rather intrusive sounds of ‘posh’ voices to be heard around the bars and sporting arenas. Hardly surprising, as York recruits over 20% of their students from private schools, as compared to Lancaster’s 8%. This was perhaps the reason for some added class-conscious spice to the usual barracking from Lancaster supporters at the various events. There was much mocking of the fruity tones of one hapless York player during the final rugby match. With a large Lancastrian, ball in hand, bearing down on him, out of the ranks of Lancaster supporters he heard the exhortation: “Seize him, Tarquin!” Other gems include; “Cracking ruggarrrr, Monty!”, “Corks, Harvey, that’s gip if ever I saw it!” and “What a load of soggy biscuits, Rufus!” But lest we be accused of having a cheap laugh at the expense of the poshos, the subtext collective has a principled position of opposing language-based stigma, in either direction. But it was very funny. ***************************************************** LAING MAY YOUR LUMS REEK subtext would like to extend a warm welcome to Angus Laing, who will start as the new Dean of LUMS this October. He joins us from Loughborough, leaving the collective wondering whether poaching staff from sports-focussed institutions is part of the VCs strategy to reclaim the Roses next year. He was also previously associated with Glasgow and the Open University. We wish him all the best! ***************************************************** DEMOCRACY RESULTS Congratulations are due to LUSU for promoting a registration drive on the first day of Summer Term that saw over 700 campus students add themselves to the electoral register. The final figure for campus: 1858. "Still less than one half!" we hear you say. Well, yes. But let's try and be positive. The final turnout for the University and Scotforth Rural ward of 74.48% was the largest in urban Lancaster, and many subtext readers will have witnessed the pleasing sight of students queueing at the Chaplaincy Centre to vote. The registration drive had an impact off campus also, with especially high numbers of students reported going to vote in the Greaves, Primrose and Moorlands areas of town. In subtext 131, we reported on the sheer number of Lancaster graduates standing in the recent General Election. In order to spare the opening of wounds on those that were sadly unsuccessful, subtext will simply inform subscribers that Simon Danczuk (Labour, Rochdale) and Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth) have retained their seats. Locally, however, Eric Ollerenshaw (Conservative) has been unseated by former LUSU Womens’ Officer Cat Smith (Labour), almost tripling the constituency majority in the process. subtext neglected to mention former SU President Ste Smith, who had stood on behalf of Labour to sit on the Cheshire West and Chester Council – we are pleased to report that he too was successful. Also successful was ex-Lonsdale President Charlie Edwards, who won a seat for the Tories on Morecambe Town Council. Meanwhile, the University Ward shall be represented on the local Council by Lucy Atkinson (Labour), Matt Mann (Labour) and Sam Armstrong (Green). Do write in if we have missed anybody out. Furthermore, subtext has spotted another ex-Lancaster student who is now a politician – a former party LEADER, no less, albeit only for a few days in acting capacity while a certain party’s NEC deliberated over and ultimately rejected Mr Farage’s resignation. subtext wishes Suzanne Evans well in her political future, especially in light of the skulduggery she has found herself embroiled in - www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/exclusive-ukip-donor-arron-banks-calls-douglas-carswell-suzanne-evans-and-patrick-o If nothing else, we are a broad church. ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK FROM: Mike M. Shart, V-C, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). TO: University Council BCC: Lord Rod E.L. Girdle (Pro-Chancellor) SUBJECT: RESTRICTED: Europe. Dear Council, During the Easter vacation a team of lawyers representing the ‘Friends of the Swoosh’ (FOTS) argued before the European Court of Human Rights that the 'displaying of a shield on a public building without prior consultation with the occupants and/or employees' was so offensive that the authorities should be allowed to ban such practices entirely. As an example, they cited our logo which contains, amongst other provocations, a lion passant facing right, symbolising, they argued, the sovereignty vested in LuVE-U and the direction in which we intend to move politically. The FOTS lawyers suggested that to make the shield acceptable it should be removed from the design as it not only carried offensively sexist and species-ist connotations, (maleness over femaleness, cats over dogs, passants over pissants), but the imposition of the shield was a clear provocation in the present times of heightened tension in industrial relations. (We think this refers to the removal of pension entitlements. By lions. Hiding behind shields. Their argument became a bit abstruse at this point, and I may not have entirely kept up.) The FOTS lawyers then went on to argue that equally unacceptable was the 'Red Rose of Lancashire' which was not only a further medieval symbol (hardly a progressive or modernising idea) but was also an insensitive and outmoded memorial to fifty years of the domination of British education by a liberal elite, now thankfully ended. Concluding their case after ten agreeable days in Strasbourg at the expense of the British taxpayer, the FOTS lawyers pointed out that after the removal of the lion and the rose, the only remaining design remaining on the shield was the 'open book'. They suggested this was anti-modernist, and that it would be quite absurd for us to be identified with such an antiquated symbol, one which, in addition, the Library had worked so hard to remove from the University entirely. They argued that the only solution to this must be to remove all three of these provocative symbols from the design, leaving just our name. And besides that, maybe several thin lines going upward, so that they looked a bit like the profile of our Ecumenical Centre of Excellence. We are to issue the following statement, pending Council’s digital approval: “The University reserves its right to continue to attract an altogether different class of student. The sort of student who looks at a shield and sees, not something made from cardboard that they’d use on a role-playing weekend, but rather a useful thing on which to put the ancestral crest; the type of student who would look at a lion passant and think, not of a tin of Golden Syrup, but of Richard Coeur de Lion and his crusade to completely remodel so many towns in the Near East, a crusade that lasted nearly as long as our estates masterplan and employed nearly as many men; the sort of student who spends the student fee on online poker in a month and who, when asked if they prefer one meaningless logo to another, isn’t about to say ‘Dunno, mate, marketing’s mostly guesswork and post hoc rationalisation, innit?’ That sort of student.” I will consider all of your thoughts on the proposed response just as soon as I have sent it. Yours, Mike. ***************************************************** MINISTERIAL MOVEMENT For those subscribers who missed the announcement, subtext can report that the new Minister for Universities and Science is the MP for Orpington, Jo Johnson, the brother of London Mayor Boris Johnson. Jo Johnson studied modern history at Balliol College, Oxford, and was first elected to parliament in 2010. His pre-parliament career was spent as an investment banker and a journalist. He had 13 years working on the Financial Times, including stints as a foreign correspondent. Mr. Johnson also co-authored an article calling for overseas students to be taken out of the government's net migration targets. This suggests that he may lock horns with Theresa May, the home secretary, who will take forward the Tory manifesto pledge for further tightening of visa rules for overseas students. Other than that he appears never to have said a word about Universities - nothing unusual there, then. ***************************************************** WITH APOLOGIES TO THE DUBLINERS While conducting our semi-annual spring-clean in the subtext warehouse, we chanced upon a dusty pile of 45s in the corner. After excavating the fossilised remains of a record player from the archeological site of our former Music Department, we managed to play one of them. We reproduce the lyrics in full here: “The Leaving of Lancaster” Farewell to you, my own uni I am going, but not far away I am bound for happy retirement But I reckon I’ll be asked to stay Chorus: So fare thee well, my own uni I guess I will still supervise and such It’s not the leaving of Lancaster that grieves me But losing what I need to stay in touch I have slaved away for years and years Evenings , weekends and holidays But now that I’m not so REFable You take away my office and mails Chorus Other unis all see value in Keeping all their old staff well chuffed But at Lancaster, each penny counts So we’re told to just get stuffed ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext collective, The whole idea that money could be saved by ending continuing membership of retired staff would simply have to be based on the common fallacy of assuming that the prime cost will be saved, rather than the marginal cost. Allow me to explain. Your average idiot would take the total cost of providing email and library facilities in the university and divide the resulting figure by the number of users, giving the unit prime cost. They then assume that you save this amount every time you shed a user or incur this amount every time you add a user. What you really need to know is the marginal cost of each additional user – doubtless next to nothing in this case: perhaps a new library card every few years. With about 15,000 staff and students, not to mention emeritus professors, 300 continuing members will make bugger-all difference. Only if you had enough extra users to need an additional email server or you had to buy extra books for the library would there be any calculable costs. The cost of those extra books and the extra server would be the true and doubtless very small amount saved by alienating 300 people (and I bet a lot of them will be changing their Wills to cut out legacies to the university – I would) and annoying hundreds of others. The University has also made sure not to take into account the possible negative consequences (lost legacies and so on) before announcing to University Council that important savings can be made by doing this. Newspapers take the same moronic approach to calculating things like the cost of e.g., a Royal event. They count the wages of every soldier and sailor on parade as though they were hired specially for the occasion or we had to hire some mercenaries to take their place square-bashing at barracks or polishing ship’s-bells and turn round and say “the Queen Mother’s funeral cost so many millions”, based on absolute tosh. Whilst this is what we’ve learned to expect from today’s lazy and half-educated journalists, it is a bit sad (but hardly surprising once you get to know them) that no intellect could be found in University House or on Council acute enough to understand how to calculate correctly the cost of continuing members. Yours aye, Captain Swing PS – Watching “The Simpsons” the other evening, I saw the family visit the “Learn Zone”, which Maggie and Marge were disappointed to find wasn’t educational at all. Was that the inspiration for our very own “Learning Zone” or did the inspiration travel the other way? ******** Dear subtext, In your last issue you asked for a review of the woodland walk around campus. Well, it’s good, but it’s even better if you get off the paths and explore the far south-west of campus. Carry on past the playing-fields (on your left), climb over a wire fence or two (quite low and not barbed), and meander through a surprisingly spacious expanse of picturesque woodland. There are some lovely patches of bluebells; also some less lovely patches of nettles (so don’t go in open-toe sandals or shorts). I’ve been at the university for 30 years, but found this spot only a few weeks ago. If you ignore the incessant pounding noise from the A6 you could imagine yourself miles from anywhere. Mike Wright ******** Dear subtext, You lamented the passing of the Department of Continuing Education (DCE) and the Open Lecture scheme in the last edition of subtext, but we have news for you. The ancient mariners did not disappear into the ether. An intrepid band of older students on the Senior Learners Programme offered by the DCE; described at the time by a very, very senior member of the University as a "Millstone round the University's neck" (see past copies of SCAN) were so furious that they organised themselves into the Continuing Learning Group, with support from the Students’ Union, and are now attached to the Centre for Ageing Research. They organise a programme of Lunchtime Lectures by asking academic staff and PhD students to donate an hour of their time from 1-2 pm on Wednesdays in Fylde LT3, then a mutual support group for those members embarking on study or wanting to discuss the content of the lecture. 2 books have been published and 3 PhDs gained by members in the last 5 years and one has recently got a new job after 10 years of unemployment. The providers of the free lectures have the benefit of a recording of their lecture being placed on the website which gets thousands of hits per week and hundreds of 'listens' (http://tinyurl.com/mne36mk). This group also took on the administration of the Open Lectures. The Head of The Centre for Ageing Research writes to Heads of Department around September time asking for volunteers to allow 'auditors' in to their lectures. A few write back and the Continuing Learning Group publicises these on its website and mailing list. For a fee of £20 auditors can sit in on the course for however long it lasts. A term or a year. Bargain. We haven't been able to find out what happens to the £20 or get it paid back to us, as we are providing this labour of love at no cost except to ourselves. The Lunchtime lectures are free and open to all and there are no age qualifications. The oldest member currently is 93 and still learning! Janet Ross-Mills Programme Co-ordinator Continuing Learning Group ******** Dear subtext, As a Lancaster graduate, do you know from where I can buy the swoosh cuff links referred to in subtext 132? Best wishes Richard [Good question. The website which sells memorabilia is on message, but there are some leftover pieces, bearing the old logo, being flogged in the Students’ Union shop. This may not be the case for much longer. Eds.] ******** Hi all - perhaps worth noting that the new Engineering building has just been featured on the big design website dezeen: http://www.dezeen.com/2015/05/09/concrete-columns-frame-the-entrance-to-john-mcaslans-lancaster-university-building/ Best, - Sam [Wasn’t this the same ‘big design website’ that gave some award or another to the Charles Carter building? The new Engineering building, we feel, is not worthy of what we formerly deemed to be the architectural equivalent of a Razzie Award… Eds.] ***************************************************** 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. |