| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Issue 136 25 June 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, isf, upper class, lancaster not in london, swooshery, senate report, bands, greenery, little things, flooding, shart attack, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The Anniversary Lectureships are the largest single long-term investment of its type that Lancaster University has made since its inception. While applauding the idea of investment of any kind, it is clear that in embarking on any such undertaking, great care should be taken. Alongside the considerable financial investment, there is the need to consider the obvious impact such a substantial investment will have on the cultural, political and intellectual fabric of the institution, as well as shaping the image of the University for many years to come. The University recognised this at the time that the Lectureships were announced, acknowledging that the appointments would be symbolic of the future; that the appointments would both condition and reflect the image that the world – and ourselves – would have of Lancaster University. An image, we would all hope, of an open and aware institution fully in tune with the idea of a modern, flexible and diverse world. So one can only suggest that the mass appointment of such a large group of white men should either be viewed as an extraordinary statistical anomaly or a genuine mistake of such proportion that it beggars belief. On every level imaginable this looks just plain wrong. One might expect such an enormous and significant investment to be trumpeted to the hilltops; subtext can only assume that the awful silence surrounding it instead is due to acute embarrassment. Let us be generous here, and grant this was probably not a deliberate policy, but even the most generous and forgiving interpretation would have to allow that this is a public relations disaster in the making. Some explanation should be forthcoming. At the very least a debate in Senate should take place and the VC should explain to staff and indeed the wider public what on earth the University was doing in allowing such a debacle to occur. ***************************************************** BY THE WAY… This is the last issue of subtext for the 14-15 academic year, a year in which we have picked up many new subscribers along the way and covered a great deal of what has been an action packed year. Stay tuned for an annual round-up and proper farewell, which is far too long to be included in this issue of subtext. ***************************************************** INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL FUTURES Staff are being asked through the staff intranet whether we would like to join the new Institute for Social Futures (ISF). This invitation is aimed at researchers across all disciplines and to all colleagues: academics, research assistants, doctoral students. subtext does not recall any consultation occurring regarding whether we wanted an ISF in the first place, other than the briefest of discussion at Senate where it was presented as a fait accompli. The ISF is described as a place that will develop synergies between colleagues, centres, departments, and faculties in Lancaster, and between researchers and non-academic partners outside the University. It is claimed it will reach out to research and scholarship across the university and bring them into constructive dialogue with ‘social research’. Which is, as they say, nice. Meanwhile, older subscribers may have been scratching their heads at this information. Sounds rather familiar… ah, yes. This all sounds a lot like the brief for the Institute for Advanced Studies (ISA) that was closed a few years ago after losing money and basically not really delivering any of its proposed ideas. (As we remember, it was the brainchild of former Deputy V-C Bob McKinlay - something to add to his glorious legacy along with the China Campus, the abolition of college senior common rooms and the dismantling of the Department for Continuing Education?) Maybe if the University had bothered to consult its staff someone could have pointed this out. Someone might also have suggested that organisations like this don’t really reflect the way that most academics work. John Wakeford, subtext contributor (see last issue), late of this parish and still much missed, often argued that much of the really useful work of the University was done is corridors, coffee bars and public conveniences – serendipitous meetings, chance conversations and random alignments (insert your own joke about random public convenience alignments here.) The Institute for Advanced studies was, it seemed, an attempt to institutionalise these unstructured happenings, which some argued at the time was basing the rationale for its existence on a paradox, and so it proved. We wish the ISF well, of course, but one hopes that some thought has been given to how it may avoid the fate that overtook the ISA. After all, the implementation, lack of consultation, lack of forward thinking, and lack of whole-institutional support led to the IAS’s closure, and could cause problems for the new institutes in future. There are advantages to transcending disciplinary boundaries and providing spaces that allow individuals to escape “silo thinking”… when it works! ***************************************************** UPPER CLASS It is, we think, an example of what George Bush père called ‘The Vision Thing’. To be able to see the bigger picture, the ability to look ahead, predict, anticipate, steal a march on the opposition. When (re)branding us with the Shield on our collective posterior like Wyoming steers, the VC was obviously thinking thusly; ‘twas done in order to appeal to prospective students of a higher social calibre. Our new Chancellor Alan Milburn perhaps ‘tipped him the wink’ as to where the wind is blowing. Chancellor Milburn is the Chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. Its recent report found that working-class job applicants are being sidelined by the UK's leading firms as a result of their personal style; accent and mannerisms are frequently used to judge "talent". The report found that working-class accents were disliked by managers who conducted job interviews, and that managers were impressed by young people who had traveled widely - a luxury which unsurprisingly tends to favour those from well-off families. Chancellor Milburn is quoted as saying that ‘This research shows that young people with working-class backgrounds are being systematically locked out of top jobs. Elite firms seem to require applicants to pass a 'poshness test' to gain entry.’ So, all is revealed. In encouraging posher students to come to Lancaster, the VC was all along thinking of our employability statistics and league table position. Forward thinking. Looking at the bigger picture. Safe hands. All that. Nothing to do with money, or social engineering, or making a predominantly white and middle-class institution even more so. By such vision we shall be judged. ***************************************************** THE CURSE OF SUBTEXT In subtext 135, we publicised the upcoming ‘Lancaster in London’ event, scheduled to take place on the 2nd of July in… Westminster Central Hall. Readers will recall that subtext was deeply concerned, nay, hysterical with worry that this particular venue wasn’t exactly the best spot for the ‘soft-opening’ of what is essentially an open day ‘on tour’, given the sheer size of the venue and its proximity to several other world leading institutions. Yesterday, a memo went around informing staff members signed up to work the conference that the Postgraduate sessions were cancelled, as well as a series of workshops aimed at teachers. Now, as subtext goes to press, we learn that all Undergraduate sessions are cancelled too, and that the entire event has been postponed. We hate to say we told you so, but subtext hopes that the organisers of the event get a second wind and perhaps take a more modest approach for next time. ***************************************************** SPOT THE SWOOSH Spotted in town, an older, bearded cyclist in some fetching (um, ‘Discuss’, Eds), short shorts. He was also wearing a yellow high visibility jerkin emblazoned with the slogan: ‘healthier, cheaper, quicker’. Alongside the slogan, top right, was the swoosh. Good luck replacing that! The old ‘hitching post’ on the entrance roundabout has a glass panel with a beautifully engraved swoosh. On a sunny day the light can catch the engraving and create a hovering ethereal image. One can imagine in the not- too-distant future gatherings of crusty hippies seated around this spot at the Midsummer solstice, offering homage. A sort of Swoosh-henge. A moving thought. ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT (17/6/2015) It was a very packed agenda for this Senate meeting, with senatorial Drop Boxes positively creaking with the weight of documentation. The agenda can be found here: www.gap.lancs.ac.uk/Committees/senate/sms/meetings/default.aspx First up was the announcement that no questions on notice had been received “that pertained to the business of Senate” (he stressed. In fact, a question on ending of University membership for retired staff had been submitted but was deemed by Secretariat to be outside the remit of Senate – see subtext 134). Moving on, we had the Vice-Chancellor’s oral update. Usually rather informative and insightful into his thinking about the direction of the university in the current climate, this time, he admitted, he had little to enlighten Senate. He was as surprised as anyone by the result of the General Election and his usual ‘sources’ were in the dark as to where the new government would go with Higher Education. The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills had a reduction target of £450m and it was inevitable that the HE budget would suffer. On other matters, Lancaster had done well to retain its 10th place in (one of) the league tables, and staff were congratulated on their response to the drug incident on campus a few weeks earlier. Next there came a paper from the Deputy V-C, asking Senate to endorse the proposed University strategic priorities for 2015-16, one of which involved a commitment to developing bursaries and maintaining tuition fees at their current levels. Somehow, this aspect had escaped the University Secretary’s eagle eye. As she has so often reminded people who try to bring such discussions to the Senate, University financial decisions are a matter for Council, not Senate, yet here we were being asked to make a decision on student funding. Still, consistency has never been the Secretariat’s strongest point. Senate was distinctly underwhelmed by the proposed priorities. Why, Dr Ashwin (Educational Research) wanted to know, was increasing the number of research grants a priority when improving the quality of research outputs was far more significant for the University? It soon became clear that the four proposed priorities had been chosen for the sole purpose of boosting Lancaster’s position in the league tables. The proposal to increase the entry tariff to bring us more in line with our ‘key competitor institutions’ came in for particular criticism. Mr. Rowlands (LUSU) reminded Senate what happened the last time this was attempted, with Lancaster having to scamper through UCAS clearing to make good the shortfall in recruitment because of unrealistically high entry requirements. Concern was also expressed about how higher tariffs would impact on our widening participation record. The VC acknowledged the ‘discomfort’ about the proposal and assured Senate that the University was anxious to maintain its WP track record… but that tariff entry was a key indicator when it came to compiling league tables. Senators were still not entirely convinced and Mr. Rowlands proposed an amendment deleting increased tariff entry from the list of priorities. What was this? A vote? In Senate? On a matter of University strategy? How would the University Secretary react? In the event, the amendment was heavily defeated with only the LUSU delegates voting in favour, thus avoiding a constitutional crisis. It was notable that those opposing the amendment included some of the most vocal critics of the original proposal. It doesn’t do to push rebellion too far. However, an important concession was won by Dr Unger (FASS), whose proposal that an explicit commitment to social inclusiveness should be included in the priority was accepted by the VC. On, then, to a report on the review of Post Graduate Teaching (PGT) at Lancaster. This was a particularly meaty document and included an external review carried out by Professor Sir Robert Burgess, former VC of Leicester University. The overall conclusion of the review was that PGT had been a much-neglected part of Lancaster’s offer and made us way out of line with those all-important key competitors. There were considerable market opportunities to develop a range of Master’s courses designed to support career advancement and professional development, as other universities had done. We needed to be much better at marketing our PGT provision as something other than an extension of our undergraduate programme. Some of our courses were unviable because of low uptake and alternatives needed to be developed. We also needed to make our campus more ‘postgraduate friendly’. And, Professor Atherton was keen to stress, all this would require a considerable increase in resourcing. Some senators were concerned that the emphasis on the career and professional market might be detrimental to traditional academically focused departments where opportunities to develop these types of qualifications were limited. They were assured by the VC that this would not happen and that the academically based higher degrees would continue to be supported and promoted. All in all, the report was welcomed by Senate and the recommendations approved. There then followed the proposed Core College Constitution, where Professor Smyth (FST) intrigued Senate with some cryptic complaints over a perceived lack of clarity in the section on college syndicates’ power to ratify the appointment of new Principals). Then came the approval of the honorary degrees to be awarded this year, about which subtext’s lips are sealed in deference to the rules of purdah. However, readers who take a close interest in these matters can be assured that this year there will be no award of a D.Mus. We say no more. The final item of note was in some ways a blast from the past. This was a report on possible models of collaboration and partnership with other bodies that Lancaster might employ in the future. Readers will recall the near merger with Liverpool several years ago and how that was avoided by Professor Smith when he first took office. The main issue behind that – Lancaster’s relatively small size and the need to develop ‘research power’ as well as excellence – is still there. Research investment is increasingly being channelled to the big institutions and we need to adapt to this by growing through partnerships. The report, from a working group chaired by Professor McEnery (Linguistics and English Language), explored the pros and cons of a range of models from international partnership to acquisition and merger. Senators welcomed the report and noted with approval that the university was taking a much more considered approach to this matter, in contrast to the Liverpool merger that had been sprung on us in the past. ***************************************************** THE BANDS THAT PLAYED LANCASTER In subtext 124, your bars correspondent chanced upon Folio’s Paul Tomlinson, who is writing a complete history of the bands that played the Great Hall in collaboration with Barry Lucas, the ents manager from way back when the Great Hall was a distinguished, high profile tour stop. Having once again run into Mr Tomlinson in Grad Bar last night, your correspondent can confirm that his vast spreadsheet has since been expanded into piles and piles of photos, concert posters and, importantly, a release date! Many simply are not aware that the Great Hall was at one time an established spot for touring bands and artists including, but by no means limited to; The Who, Queen, Bob Marley, AC/DC, Genesis, Status Quo, Elvis Costello, Tina Turner, Sparks, The Clash, The Stranglers, The Undertones, U2, Cliff Richard and Paul McCartney; making the Great Hall hugely popular with locals wanting a regular night out. ‘When Rock Went To College’ is to be released by Carnegie Publishing in Spring 2016, and subtext can’t recommend it enough not only for a unique insight into our own history, but for musical anecdotes and trivia for the hard-core muso. ***************************************************** LANCASTER GOES GREEN (and mauve, and yellow, and....) Moseying around the campus, you may have noticed some very smart planting boxes containing flourishing growths of vegetables: lettuces, carrots, onions etc. Each college has at least one of these, so there should be some of these veggies near you. The selection of veggies is not the same in every box, because colleges were consulted as to what they would like to see growing in their boxes, and naturally enough they didn’t all choose the same things. There are also plots of herbs, outside County Main, by Physics and at InfoLab. Between Pendle and the ISS Building there are plots of fruit (strawberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blueberries etc). This plot also has grape vines and a couple of fig trees. As we all know only too well, Bailrigg is a pretty breezy campus, and at Lancaster’s latitude the sun is very low in winter, so it will be interesting to see whether the grapes and figs succeed. What you may not realise is that you - staff, students, whoever - are encouraged to pick these (they are free - there’s no charge) and use them as part of your personal food preparation. The wildflower seeding on the two roundabouts and on the flanks of the approaches to the underpass is all part of the same scheme. It has taken many of us a while to get used to seeing the rather unruly growth of daisies in the underpass and the buttercups and alliums on the roundabouts, where formerly there was smooth grass; but let’s admit it, the trimmed grass was really a bit sterile. Keeping it cut consumed volumes of fossil fuel and took a lot of time of the grounds staff which could have been spent more creatively - and this is what they are now doing. All this is the result of the Green Lancaster project, which is a collaboration between the University and LUSU. Often opponents in debate, they appear to be enjoying finding themselves on the same side in this exercise. The Grounds team from Facilities have undertaken most of the heavy lifting, moving the planting boxes into place: they are made of oak and too heavy to move without machinery even when empty. They also provided advice on some of the technicalities of growing the plants. At the other end of the food chain, Catering are using some of the herbs and vegetables in preparing their food. The plants are grown from seed at the Green Lancaster EcoHub. This is located between Lancaster House Hotel and Alexandra Park, making good use of the Grade II-listed barn. A small army of student volunteers works on this. This work appeals not only to experienced gardening enthusiasts, but also to students who are not interested in the drinking culture and don’t like sport. There are a significant number of such people, especially among international students, and this opportunity is proving a useful social activity for them. If you’re wondering about the cost of all this, it’s funded in part by HEFCE, through NUS Students’ Green Fund, and channelled via 26 student unions across the country, including LUSU. The compost for the planting boxes comes from Global Renewables in Leyland, and is made from the garden waste collected from green recycling boxes across the county. The Green Lancaster Project appears to be one of those very rare animals, an initiative that is a success and has no downside. ***************************************************** LITTLE THINGS THAT MEAN A LOT Subscribers will probably have noticed the large new sign at the University gates (all right, there are no actual gates, but let’s not get petty this early in the article). The sign says ‘Lancaster University’ and beside that, instead of the elegant and familiar simplicity of the Swoosh, there is the odd plectrum-shaped thing with a lion, two choux buns, a Kitchener moustache and a book on it. Hey ho. Below all that muddle is the line ‘Welcome to Main Campus’. Now, we’re aware that not everyone cares about stuff like this, so we won’t bang on about it too long, but the fact is that the phrase ‘Main Campus’ written in this way suggests that there is a not-Main subsidiary campus somewhere else, which is something we’re not aware of. Using ‘Main Campus’ in this way as a proper noun is like saying ‘Welcome to Department of History,’ or Welcome to Health Centre’. It’s not a hanging offence, though legislation should be introduced within the life of this Parliament to rectify that omission, but it’s jolly niggling when one passes it every single morning. ***************************************************** OLD FAITHFUL Subscribers who regularly pass the entrance to Bowland North will be aware of the drain sited there that regularly belches forth excitingly – mercifully that which is belched suggests that the drain is connected to the sinks rather than anything less savoury. To some subscribers it might seem strange that, as the University is on a hill, water could apparently flow upward, but pressure is a strange thing. Which gives us the chance again to tell the story of the Great Furness Summer Flood of about ten years ago, when the then-Principal of Furness was standing outside her College listening to a traditional Lancashire summer cloudburst hammering onto the roof. She turned to face the Square, to be greeted by the sight of erupting drains and a wave of water flowing down the Spine towards her. She could do nothing but stand and watch as it swirled about her ankles and soaked the carpet in the foyer. As she surveyed the ruin, the College Secretary came out of her office and said ‘The bus for the Submariner’s Conference has just arrived…’ True story. ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK FROM: Robin Sellars, Brand Excellence Director TO: Mike M. Shart, V-C, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). SUBJECT: Image Opportunity Dear Mike I know that many of your colleagues were sceptical about appointing someone from outside the University sector to your newly created Brand Excellence Department. What, they no doubt asked, would someone from a leading confectionery manufacturer know about the world of academia? I have become aware that there are of course some differences between working at Lancaster and my previous post. However, there are more similarities than you might think. Selling chocolates and sweets is very much like selling the university student experience. It’s about the wrapping but also crucially it’s what’s in the middle that counts! I have been thinking a lot about what it is that makes LuVE-U unique. We’re clearly a university with contemporary values and an impressive track record of academic and commercial achievement. But what makes us distinctive? How can we lead rather than follow? Well, Vice-Chancellor, I believe that I have found a way in which our entrepreneurialism, innovation and internationalism can shine through for all to see. The other day I received an email from the President of the Hustle Group of World-Leading Good Universities. He writes that: "It is my esteemed pleasure to information you that your institution has been approved for membership of the Exclusive Top 100 of Known Universities, the largest network of such apparent institutions in the real world. The Exclusive Top 100 – known exclusively as the Hustle Grope - highlights and profiles the world's most accomplished universities in all major countries. We provide an exclusive and powerful networking forum opportunity-wise for our valuable members to communicate wildly and achieve social and career successfulness. Membership enrolment is limited, so please submit your application hastily within five business days. It only costs US$5,000 (five thousand) dollars to apply." It just so happened that I was in London at the time when this email arrived and bumped quite by accident into a friend who works at Oxford University. Over the bustle and noise of the station concourse, he told me that Oxford too was a member of the Hustle Group, so this is a clearly a highly select and elite group! I live by what I write in my marketing material, Vice-Chancellor, so, leading as always rather than following, I spoke to a very nice lady at the Hustle Group’s Nigeria office in Abuja, and she has processed our joining fee. This is going to be a game-changer for us! I will forward our joining certificate once I receive it. Perhaps we should mount it in a shield-shaped frame and put it somewhere prominent? With Best Wishes Robin Sellers Brand Excellence Director ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, I was one of those individuals who volunteered to take part in a focus group to discuss the results of the Staff Survey and the University’s response to it. I was in the ‘Work life Balance’ focus group. The participants were recently sent out an interim report which we were informed was not to be passed on to anyone else. I disagreed with the overriding sentiment expressed in the accompanying email sent from HR. I sent this response to HR with a request that my comments be forwarded onto the other participants in the group. This request was refused. As I do not have any other means of contacting the other members of the focus group, I attach my original email and hope that publication in subtext will enable my comments to reach at least some of those partisans. My email read as follows; “Thank you for sending [the interim report]. I have read it with interest. However, I must point out in the strongest terms that this document is in no way shape or form representative of (a) what was discussed at my focus group and (b) the strength of feeling that was expressed. The attached document represents the watered down, flaccid and anodyne document that all of the focus group were worried would be produced and so it has turned out to be. I for one, am extremely disappointed and frustrated that our views have been effectively misrepresented. I do not unfortunately have the email addresses of the other participants in the focus group otherwise I would have included them in my reply to you. Please can you forward my email to all of the other participants in the focus group. If you are not willing to forward my email on I would be grateful if you could inform me to that effect. Yours Sarah [Very telling, but not in any way surprising. 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. |