| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** The Summer Bumper Bonanza Issue! Issue 146 28 April 2016 ***************************************************** 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, EU, PREVENT, PREVENT 2, senate, lost and found, more lost and found, LUSU bonanza, democracy, scan through time, architecture bonanza, more LUSU, Shart attack, concert review, John Urry, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Subscribers of a Republican persuasion may recall that back in the 1980’s, whenever an argument about the monarchy started, a Monarchist would eventually seek to end proceedings by saying something like “You want to have an elected head of state instead of the Queen? Two Words for you: President Kinnock.” There are those of us who think that Glenys Kinnock would in fact have made an excellent President, but that’s a different argument. What we’d like to draw your attention to here is that, just across the water, the Irish are showing the world how it can be done. Presidents Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese both rocked it, and now Michael D Higgins (or “Michael D” as most people call him) is doing the office of President proud. Not only is he an academic and an extremely fine poet, but he’s down with the kids (well, he likes music, and there is an oft-reprinted photo of him nailing the double-denim open-shirted look at a Bob Dylan concert in the 70’s). He is also a philosopher, doing eloquently and creatively what English public figures don’t seem able to do; talking sensibly, deeply and perceptively about matters of public moment. Which brings us to the President’s speech at the European Universities Association on April 7th. There’s a link below if you want to see all of what he said, and we would commend it to you. Just to give a flavour of it, here are a few points from a wide-ranging oration: he suggests that an ever-increasing focus on producing graduates for the market is bringing universities down a “precarious road” at the expense of life-enhancing skills such as critical thinking and creativity. Universities need to be allowed to flourish as spaces with the intellectual courage to reject dominant ideologies. He challenged universities to recover the “moral purpose of original thought and emancipatory scholarship”. The relationship between the university and a student cannot be reduced to a “provider of narrow professional training” disengaged from independent thought and scholarly engagement. And just one more: “Fostering the capacity to dissent is another core function of the university…in which the critical exploration of alternatives to any prevailing hegemony is encouraged.” It’s worth reading. But hey, he also thinks that education should be free, so what does he know? ***************************************************** WHERE ARE EU? Has anyone noticed that Lancaster is one of the very few HEIs not to have signed this joint letter in support of staying in the EU? http://tinyurl.com/zhsqxr9 That our Pro-Chancellor, Lord Liddle, is ‘big on the Europe thing’ (he has made a tidy living out of advising Tony Blair on Europe, following the Europhile SDP away from the Labour Party in the 1980s, and is presently chairman of the Progressive think-tank, Policy Network, which focuses particularly on European relations) would suggest that we ought to be too, and the Vice-Chancellor has recently sent a memo to the University Council gently pointing out the financial virtues of remaining in, as well as the fact that UUK is thoroughly against the ‘Brexit.’ So… Why haven’t we signed the letter? Curious. ***************************************************** PREVENT-ION IS BETTER THAN CURE Many readers will have been shocked to learn of the death of 21 year old Khalif Shariff, who in 2014 was briefly a student at the university before leaving for Syria to join ISIS. The news comes in the wake of the Government's controversial PREVENT strategy, an anti-radicalisation programme which essentially requires academic institutions (among many others) to be vigilant and attentive to potential extremism among the student body. The list of unmistakable 'indicators' of festering extremism that we should be looking out for includes anger at Government foreign policy, and a mistrust of mainstream media reporting (see subtext 140). Pretty much everybody with this new responsibility for rooting out potential terrorists has been cynical of PREVENT's merits and eager to do the bare minimum asked of them by the policy, not least our own Vice-Chancellor, who at a previous meeting of the Senate insisted that there isn't an issue with extremism at Lancaster. Aside from what he rather negatively implied about other universities, subtext is supportive of the VC's stance - nobody in their right mind believes that keeping tabs on dusky looking chaps who seem a bit narky about imperialism is an effective use of anyone's time, or that it can be effectively done without discriminating against and harbouring suspicion for minorities on campus. But, what's happened has happened. While subtext doesn't believe that Lancaster could have done more to prevent this senseless tragedy, one wouldn't be surprised if the Home Office were to take a dim view of Lancaster in light of this, and make an example out of us by strong-arming the top table into taking PREVENT a little more seriously. For the sake of the social cohesion that our campus enjoys, we hope that any potential diktats from the Home Office are stood up to. ***************************************************** AND ANOTHER THING While we're on the subject, the subtext collective was disheartened by the reactions of some students to a (now deleted) post about Mr. Shariff on the Overheard at Lancaster Facebook page. One student took a moment to lament the tragedy of a young person with a promising future being brainwashed by a murderous cult and dying in hateful conflict alongside them, a comment which others swiftly and hysterically reacted to with accusations of being a 'terrorist sympathiser', and insisting that because he was doing a law degree he was bright enough not to get sucked in by such rhetoric and therefore unworthy of ‘sympathy’ (which he wasn’t given at any point). It seems that some students have issues of their own with being sucked in by hateful rhetoric... ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT: 27/4/2016 The VC began by welcoming a new face to the top table, Ms. Jocelyn Prudence. It was perhaps a trifle undiplomatic to introduce her as the former CEO of UCEA, the university employers’ association, and leader of the employers’ side in national pay negotiations. And this to a roomful of people whose pay has been held down over many years by that self-same organisation. Still, at least the VC has done well out of that process. He did not specify Ms. Prudence’s actual role at Lancaster, just that she will be ‘helping us out’ with our admin. The new Fiona, perhaps? Welcome on board. The VC’s report can be best described as being cautiously upbeat. We’ve now received the HEFCE funding letter and we have not suffered any cuts and actually some increases for ‘expensive subjects’. The signs for research-related funding were looking good too. One cloud on the horizon is the announcement from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills that the supposedly ‘light touch’ Teaching Excellence Framework assessment is to go ahead and has to be completed by the end of summer. This summer. The VC was a touch sceptical about the likelihood of this. Next came a paper from Professor Steve Bradley. This was a generally favourable report on our teaching relationship with Sunway University in Malaysia and recommended extending the relationship for another five years, which was duly approved. This was followed by a request for approval of revisions of the Library Rules. This had been brought forward on the Agenda at the request of a Senator who was concerned that one rule change would remove the right of retired staff to use the library. This seemed to be at odds with the more positive attitudes to retired staff shown at the last Senate (see subtext 144). The VC was sympathetic and after some discussion it was agreed that retired staff should be treated the same as alumni when it came to library access. Next came a presentation from the McAuslan consultancy on the new Estates Masterplan. The presentation, complete with the usual whizzy images, disjointed phrases and incoherent commentary, is doing the rounds at the moment so many readers will get the opportunity to see this for themselves. Among the key new features will be a new university entrance-way, the extension of the covered way to Alex Park (hooray!) and the creation of something called the ‘Health Corridor’ connecting the Health Innovation Campus to the rest of campus. One interesting fact to emerge from the subsequent discussion was that the Highways Agency was currently conducting a study of local traffic conditions, in particular the infamous Galgate bottleneck, and this may result in new road accesses to enable a smoother traffic flow to and from campus. Then it was Professor Bradley again, this time with news on the progress of our latest attempt to set up shop in China, a partnership with Beijing Jiaotong University (BJTU). This has been something of the nature of a Long March for Lancaster, only one where for every two steps forward we had to take one back again. But at last here was some good news. Professor Bradley was pleased to announce that the Chinese Ministry of Education had at last given permission for the establishment of ‘Lancaster University College at Beijing Jiaotong University’. Oh, and they want us to begin teaching in September. This September. There remain, however, some unanswered – and fundamental – questions about our ability to maintain genuine academic freedom, and the right of staff and students to organise politically, in an increasingly authoritarian Chinese political climate. But for the moment let us thank Professor Bradley and his colleagues for their dogged persistence in pursuing this venture. There followed a progress report from Professor Atherton on the proposed Health Innovation Campus. Things are going well and we are on track to raise the £41m needed for the first phase. It became clear from the discussion that followed that if this comes off Lancaster will be able to provide not just a new home for the faculty of Health and Medicine but an integrated campus involving academics, health services, social services, care providers, research centres and businesses, something not seen before in the UK. Preliminary work on preparing the site is expected to begin in May. Next up was Professor Decent with four papers on, respectively: Research Enhancement, Revised Research Ethics Approval procedures, a review of University Research Centres, and the Science and Innovation Audit. The latter reported a major success for Lancaster in achieving, in collaboration with Sheffield University, funding from the government to conduct an audit of how research and innovation feeds into economic growth. This will put Lancaster in a strong position to bid for future research funding and was achieved, as the VC gleefully pointed out, in the face of competition from Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, Manchester et al. There followed the presentation for approval of a new Lancaster University Arts Strategy. This was a comprehensive and ambitious strategy to create a unified programme combining public arts programmes, creation initiatives, our collections and archives, and public outreach and engagement. A key part of the strategy was a major investment in a long-overdue redevelopment of the Great Hall complex into a distinctive arts hub. Some concern was expressed that without strong prioritisation the necessary funding might not be forthcoming, as had happened in the past when the Great Hall refurb had appeared in the project list. The VC assured Senate that this time the necessary capital spend had already been earmarked and the university was in conversation with other additional funding sources. Finally, a discussion of the future of Lancaster’s MOOC provision which, because it is ‘commercial and in confidence’ cannot be reported. But it was very interesting. ***************************************************** LU TEXT LOST AND FOUND After a lengthy absence, we are delighted to revive our repository of all press cuttings featuring Lancaster that somehow didn’t make it into the weekly media roundup in LU Text. http://tinyurl.com/h7lqbpz - The local press exists too, and mustn’t be neglected. It is indeed true that Lancaster is one of the worst offenders in the UK for the number of academic staff it keeps on insecure contracts, coming 49th in the rankings for the 50 universities with the most academic staff on insecure contracts based on HESA returns (lagging 12 places behind York), and 22nd on a table of teaching staff only, (that York didn’t manage to qualify for). Of particular interest to subtext was the rather defensive response from the ‘university spokesman’, who seems to be accusing UCU of being liars, by insisting that they have included the employment data from our temporary employment service, which is tasked with finding non-academic work for students and members of the local community. Except… These figures are based on HESA returns (which deals solely with academic staff) and an FOI request about zero-hours contracts. If the university opted to respond to such a request with the employment details of casual bar staff and student tour guides, then surely they are to blame for the apparent ‘distortion’ in the figures. And ignoring this confusion, the first table deals SOLELY with HESA returns, and we are ranked in the top 50 with more than half of our academic staff on insecure teaching contracts. subtext isn’t sure that such an accolade is striven for in the University Strategy. (The full table can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/hu5gzmh) ***************************************************** MORE PEOPLE IN THE NEWS The South Yorks Police Commissioner who yesterday suspended Chief Constable David Crompton over the Hillsborough verdict is none other than the Rev. Alan Billings, late of our Religious Studies dept. and well known on Radio 4’s Thought for the Day. Touch of divine justice, perhaps? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36154201 ***************************************************** SPECIAL REPORT: DEMOCRACY INACTION The subtext collective has taken no particular pleasure in repeatedly taking the SU to task over its affairs this academic year (subtexts passim ad nauseam), and indeed, given that our readership consists mainly of staff, it may wonder why the affairs and screw-ups of LUSU are of any concern to them. Simply put, we believe that both the academic community and the SU have a responsibility to be intelligent and educational in their provisions, and the failure to be either is not good for the student body. Let's talk about LUSU's new democratic proposals. A preliminary outline of a new 'student jury' system is 'helpfully explained' in a video (http://lusu.co.uk/12192/we-want-to-give-you-more-power/) - replacing the word 'officer' with 'cat' is a more relatable means of engagement, we're sure. The rationale behind the new structure is fascinating. Apparently, officers ought to be responsible for 'scrutinising ideas submitted by students' (which they already are), rather than to lead the generation of policy (which they also do). Is there a reason we can't have both? The benefit of having an elected officer is that they are not just a receptacle for 'ideas' from the people whom they represent; if you ask your average student what they 'want' from the university, most would say something along the lines of 'a Nandos on campus'. Which is fine, but we don't expect your average student to know about, say, a departmental restructure, or fee and rent increases, or cuts to services - these are things that the officers are privy to, and any officer worth their salt would spend time engaging with the community and committees within the university and enthusing and empowering students over the things they find out about. Although apparently, these aren't a priority of LUSU - they now say that they need to be responsive to needs like "studies, sport, clubs, societies, etc..." (this, from a President who promised a 'more political union'). So, the plan is to abolish LUSU Council (and a whole raft of elected representatives) and put all decision-making power into LUSU's Executive Committee, which is less representative than the one they are abolishing. All of this will apparently place more power in students' hands. LUSU Executive Committee is not an open meeting that any student can attend and speak at - LUSU Council is. If 'unanimity' can't be reached by the Executive Committee because a policy is 'controversial' (there is no definition of what constitutes 'controversial'), it will then go to a randomly selected 'student jury' who will attempt to reach unanimity. If the 'student jury' cannot reach unanimity, then the idea is put to a referendum - sorry - 'preferendum'. Juries are indeed democratic (the oldest form of democracy, in fact) but subtext hopes the student jury will be given the same support and unbiased information as a ‘real life’ one. However, that the Executive would be more or less prohibited from enacting any kind of policy without consulting the jury is a far more complex and overlong way of simply having students lobby their officers to do things. Perhaps LUSU finds that this system isn't working, but this does not mean that its current structures are unfit for purpose - only that they are being poorly used. The abolition of LUSU Council, as we say above, will remove one of the most open forums that the union has outside of a general meeting, and making sure that people actually promote it as such is a far easier way than this new convoluted and undemocratic method. Worryingly, Union officers are this evening being asked to scrutinise and endorse a vast constitutional change that they only received on Monday, with no alternatives to an abolished committee, its subcommittees, its accountability, and what this means for the broader governance of the union. Furthermore, the proposal is to be voted on at next week's general meeting (general meetings are an annual affair, and under the new proposals, this will be the only forum where elected officials can be held to account publicly). General meetings seldom reach quoracy unless there is an issue being discussed that students are sufficiently impassioned about, but the SU aims to get around this by enabling 'proxy voting' - which means that individuals can vote without having to hear debate and arguments to the contrary of the publicity materials distributed by the SU. Can anybody seriously tell us, with a straight face, that this isn't a laughable prospect? That this isn't the SU pushing through policy without scrutiny and adequate consultation with informed individuals? Apparently, this proposal is borne out of student consultation. We are to believe that students ASKED for more power to be placed into their hands. But these constitutional changes are an enormous leap of faith from this feedback. It is all part of LUSU's 'democratic review', but in this case, such a thing has a whole new meaning - that LUSU has "reviewed democracy, and decided it isn't particularly good." *** IN LUSU WE TRUSTEE Most of LUSU’s proposed constitutional changes give the Trustees a lot more power. There is a requirement for only one general meeting to be held in a calendar year, and only the Trustees can call other general meetings, subject to receiving a request signed by 2% of the membership. LUSU’s Trustee Board is not a public meeting. Students’ ability to call General Meetings has been severely limited to a non-public meeting, shrouding the proposed new methods of decision-making in even darker shadows. Oh, and elections of student Trustees (of which there were three) will be replaced with an ‘Appointments Committee.’ That’s more power in the hands of students right there. subtext understands that the SU will use the aforementioned new ‘proxy voting’ service to secure ‘Yes’ voters, and has heard rumours that the plan is to accost students in the queues at Roses and ask for a ‘moment of their time’ to register to vote in ‘this really great new proposal.’ Even the tactics to secure votes are so anti-democratic to the core it's amazing that they've the wherewithal to deploy them in broad daylight. The vote will take place at LUSU’s AGM in George Fox Lecture Theatre 1 at 6pm on Thursday May 5. We might also note that LUSU has picked to hold the GM on the 5th of May, at a time when absolutely everyone (party) political will be campaigning at the elections. Those present at the meeting who might share subtext’s concerns over the proposals may find themselves outvoted by individuals not present to hear opposing arguments. ***************************************************** YET LESS DEMOCRACY There are important elections next week for Police and Crime Commissioners across England - but you wouldn't know it from walking across campus. Past elections, both local and national, have seen a colourful array of red, blue, orange, green and purple posters plastered up and down the spine. This year - nothing. Why should this be? Because there's no point campaigning in a place with no voters, that's why! The new Individual Electoral Registration scheme has combined with a distinct lack of will from the city council, which failed to send people round to chase up unregistered residents until January, and produced a record-breaking set of electoral registration rates - and not in a good way. As an aside, for those of you who snorted when you saw PCC elections described as "important", take a look at yesterday's development in South Yorkshire, where a chief constable has just been suspended (see “more people in the news” above). These positions matter. Let's look at the electoral registration figures for campus. At the elections on 5th May, a total of 821 campus residents will be entitled to vote. According to Lancaster University Accommodation Services' facebook page, there are "around 6500 bed spaces on our main campus", so that means 12.6% of campus residents are entitled to vote. Hence the lack of any visible campaigning. The effect extends into town, where thousands of houses now contain no-one on the electoral roll. The empty houses are almost all student residences. Should we worry? After all, registration is very easy indeed these days, and it infantilises our students to place the blame on others. Many will conclude that most of Lancaster's students know little and care less about the democratic process. Can we make them care? About elections - maybe not. But there's another vote on 23rd June, and it takes place right in the middle of extrav week. As it stands, the vast majority of our students are ineligible to vote in the referendum. Deadline to register for that is 7th June. Will we see a sudden rush to participate? The subtext collective hopes so, but fears the worst. ***************************************************** OLD SCAN-DALS Anyone with an interest in history and some free time between now and May 5th should visit the Peter Scott Gallery and enjoy the “SCAN through time” exhibition that is currently on display. It is a compact but wonderful display of the student newspaper’s omnipresence throughout some of the more controversial aspects of university history, and how they were covered. With a particular emphasis on rent strikes, protest, and activist troublemaking, it is wonderful to see that one of campus’s flagship institutions is openly displaying some of the critical discourse levied at the university in years gone by. If nothing else, the addition of subtext’s occupation newsflash (December 2014) to the display is most welcome. ***************************************************** ARCHITECTS’ CORNER COLUMN INCHES After a long period of consultation, Rick Mather Associates and Grant Associates, who have been selected to take on the much talked about spine redevelopment project, have presented their vision. University web pages devoted to the project are quick (as we all are) to emphasise the integral and iconic standing of the spine, which has remained untouched as building after building has been plonked on its periphery. The architects are so mindful of its sacrosanctity that they have opted to obliterate its most cohesive and navigable elements. Namely, it has been proposed that the 'rotting canopy' (rotting? Really?) and its pillars (which are apparently 'claustrophobic') be removed, and replaced with a big glass shelter. This notion that anything not made of glass is uninhabitable is a strange one, but the idea that it will in any way prevent a 'rotted' ambience is stranger - one need only look at the covering over the walkway near the Deli (or most bus shelters in the UK) to realise that a glass shelter is going to look majestic for about six months before it takes on a mossy, green hue. Still, at least this natural succumbing to the elements will prevent students from being baked like ants under an eyeglass in the summer months. Apparently, the impossibility of postering (definitely an 'integral' feature of the spine) if the columns were removed isn’t relevant, because we're going to go with the Green option of having digital screens all over campus. Because screens which require a 24/7 drain on the national grid are Greener than recyclable paper. This is a victory for the University, which wages a yearly war of tidiness against campus, frantically tearing down posters every time someone vaguely important comes to visit. Traditionally, the SU has mounted a retaliation against attempts to restrict the postering activity that allows student initiatives to be on show. None has been forthcoming this year as yet. Some say that nobody pays attention to posters anymore anyway, but this sounds like one of those pieces of received wisdom that has little factual basis - if nothing else, having hard copy promotion alongside digital advertising prevents dilution and 'blindness' on both sides. Furthermore, the quick and easy method of, say, a Theatre Group publicity officer hammering out posters in Microsoft Publisher and slapping them all over campus will be replaced with a six week wait for an email from Facilities granting permission to use the screens. But digital screens are cool and will make Lancaster look like the future does in films. So There. There is also talk of introducing a fountain or pond outside the Peter Scott gallery, which can be turned off and used as a multi-use space for 'student events and activities'. Is this wise, considering that the footfall in that area is meagre, and therefore wouldn’t be an effective exhibitive thoroughfare in the same way that Alexandra Square is? And, at no point during the presentation did they mention doing the one thing that everyone has been asking them to do - to extend the covered walkway to Alexandra Park! The question is - what is this mass overhaul really going to achieve? If it's to attract more students, then one wonders how caging off vast swathes of the campus is going to make things any less 'claustrophobic', especially on open days. The true answer is probably that this is a project that will look remarkable in the brochures (as long as it is photographed in the summer months when the 'series of gardens' will actually be in full bloom), yet so poorly understands how the spine is used (or our standard weather!) as to be a colossal waste of time. When it comes to architecture, beauty sticks out - this new streamlined and conformist proposal will simply see us fade into a background of endless glass and glaring screens. Still, at least we get to decide what colour the paving should be. *** HOSKIN’S CHOICE One positive aspect of the Design the Spine refurbishment plan is that at long last the Barbara Hepworth sculpture is to be moved from its shady corner in Alex Square and restored to its original position outside the Great Hall. The sculpture, one of a series of 7 cast by Hepworth in the 1960s, was acquired in 1971 and for over 30 years stood on the green outside the Great Hall. Then, with the refurbishment of Alex Square in 2012, some bright spark in University House thought it would make a great ornament to the little rock garden being planned for the north-west corner of the square. And there it has stood, cunningly concealed from public view, occasionally peeking through the luxuriant tropical vegetation like the remains of a Mayan temple. When it is finally moved the university will have to think of a different way to ensure the security of the single most valuable item in our possession. However, there is another piece of public art that did not fare so well in the consultant’s report. The sculpture in question is by John Hoskin (1921-1990) and is a metal structure attached to the west wall of the Physics Building, extending from the ground to roof level. It was constructed by Hoskin during his time as Sculptor in Residence at Lancaster, 1968-71. It is untitled, and does not appear in any of the main catalogues of his work. However, there is a tantalising reference in his obituary in The Guardian (1990) which may be to this piece: “I remember his telling me once how he had been given a commission and had designed a massive piece — tall plates of stainless steel bolted to a cradle of tubes and rods, the whole thing standing over thirty feet high. Because it was for a very public site, structural engineers were brought in to calculate its stability, especially in exceptionally high winds. All agreed that mathematically it was perfect. For John it was the simplest demonstration of how and why art went to the root of everything.” Over the next 40 years of exposure to the elements it suffered badly and by 2011 was rusting, corroded in parts, subject to graffiti and other acts of vandalism. Thankfully, it was rescued by the Public Arts Strategy Committee and given a major restorative overhaul. However, in the plans produced by the Design the Spine team the surface to which the sculpture is secured is to be a ‘green wall’ (plants again) with no sign of the artwork anywhere nor any indication of what is to become of it. We await with interest the decision on what is to happen to this unique artwork. If aesthetic considerations cut no ice with the people who decide these things then they should consider this. The market value of John Hoskin sculptures has increased considerably over the last few years and this piece might turn out to be far more valuable than they could imagine. *** BLACKBIRD SINGING IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT In recent weeks the subtext collective has been puzzled by the fine-mesh netting that has appeared on the hedgerow running from Bailrigg Lane to the University boundary. This followed a particularly brutal short-back-and-sides assault by an industrial hedge trimmer on the same length of shrubbery. subtext was intrigued. Was it to protect the new buds from the depredations of the wild deer known to inhabit the campus and its surroundings (now is a good time of year to see them if you are out and about just before dawn)? Could it be to prevent the new-born lambs from wriggling their way through to an untimely end on the A6? Ahh! Little lambs, eh? Or, as one member of the collective with a fondness for SF claimed, to stop the establishment of a colony of killer wasps recently escaped a fiendish secret experiment being conducted in LEC? Actually, this last was not too far off the mark. Because the real reason for the netting, it has emerged, is to prevent wild birds from building their nests in the self-same hedgerow. But who would do such a mean thing, and why on earth would they do it? Well, it’s all to do with the new Health Innovations Campus, which has been given the go-ahead for that site. Preliminary work is due to start in May and this will involve digging up said hedgerow. However, under the Wildlife and Country Act (1981) this would be illegal if there were birds nesting in the branches. Even one bird spotted with a single twig in its beak would be deemed to be evidence of habitation, hence the netting. So not a word to Bill Oddie. *** GILLOWS GALLOWS Subscribers may also have come across the news of City Block’s plans to redevelop the Gillows building on North Road, and the less than heroic reception it has received from all parts of the local community. (http://tinyurl.com/j73vuw3) The Students’ Union, whose nightclub - the Sugarhouse - is situated just behind the buildings, is also concerned that a residential area will leave the venue subject to noise complaints that could prove damaging to business and the nightlife in general. You only need to observe what has recently become of Dalton Rooms to see where they’re coming from - it used to have a wonderful front area replete with seating and trellises, it was full of people, and you could see into the building itself. Such sights were highly attractive and the vibrancy one could observe on its front doorstep made you want to go in. Now, half of that front space is caged off - it looks like there are building works ensuing, but it's a permanent affair to hold sound barriers in place because of noise complaints, and so evening revellers are welcomed by a dreadful tunnel-like entrance and an off-putting, claustrophobic queuing space. We can only imagine that the business model stands up, but we do wonder if and when the point will come where there is no longer money to be made in building yet more accommodation for a no-longer expanding student body, that will ultimately take up space for businesses, venues and other initiatives. We note as well the concerns expressed that such buildings often preserve the façade of the original, but then make such radical changes behind that the preserved front actually looks ridiculous. The Guardian recently did an article (http://tinyurl.com/goeh967) on the Top Ten of such architectural atrocities; Lancaster is the proud possessor of two of them, including one extant City Block renovation, as well as the Kingsway ‘orange slug’. Let’s hope the proposed Gillow building doesn’t put us even higher up the table. ***************************************************** THE ENABLING ACT, LUSU-STYLE Let's leave aside the oddness of the proposals going to LUSU next week, and focus on the process. Can they really get away with this? To remind you, this is how LUSU does democracy when it really wants to get something through a general meeting: 1) Get Union Council to change the by-laws to permit proxy voting at general meetings, where the chair can exercise as many proxy votes as he/she wishes, a mere week before the crucial general meeting is due to take place. 2) When you change the by-laws, make sure that proxy votes count towards quorum, so conjuring up an image of the chair, sat in a room with just a minute-taker present, declaring "quorum established" and proceeding to cast vote after vote. 3) Call the general meeting on a public election day, so ensuring that all the politically active students are elsewhere when the general meeting is on. 4) Lobby students at that most sober of debating forums, Roses, to give you their proxy votes. Add a sprig of mint, sit back, and abolish that governing council! Similarities with the Enabling Act are obvious, but we want to avoid invoking Godwin's Law if at all possible, so we'll just leave the comparison hanging. Instead, a simple question. When LUSU Council passed the by-law change to introduce proxy voting, did the trustees check whether this would be within its powers under the constitution? The constitution says that the governing body of LUSU, in the absence of referendum policy, is the general meeting - a physical meeting of members, where you need to be present in person to participate and vote. The rules on quorum were inserted for a reason. It was never intended that a room containing just a chair and minute taker would constitute a valid meeting. Has LUSU Council exceeded its authority here? Does the introduction of proxy voting constitute such a fundamental change to the nature of the general meeting that a constitutional amendment should be required to make that change? subtext suspects the answer may be "yes". Would any of our student readers like to pursue a complaint along these lines? ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). TO: Gav Fallopian, Catering Assistant & Vice-President, Lune Valley UCUnison. BCC: Beau Studd, Head of Workforce Contentment; Hewlett Venkklinne, Director of External Excellence Insistence (External, Internal & Library) SUBJECT: Restructure. Dear Gav, First of all, I'd like to say that I very much enjoyed the leaflets distributed by the UCUnison last week, much like I enjoy all of your Union's work - Hewlett tells me that the depiction of me as 'Genghis Khan' is highly complementary, and represents my sterling efforts to internationalise the university. I am writing to you today to let you know that the consultation on the future of the catering department has been completed, and after a great deal of thought and discussion it has been decided that a large scale restructure is in order. More specifically, we have decided that in workforce terms, everything is to remain in place, except for the post of 'Catering Assistant', which is being abolished. I was shocked to discover that this is the precise position that you hold within your department, and I know that this will come as a shock to you as well. However, Beau has informed me of the standard practise regarding redundancies, and I can inform you that you are eligible for redeployment in another area of our organisation. It is not just the catering department that is being restructured - I can also inform you that I have instigated a restructure of my own office. I have abolished my own post (Vice-Chancellor) and replaced it with the new, streamlined and higher salaried post of Vice-Chancellor (University) - a post that, I am sure you agree, better meets the needs of a fast moving institution such as ours. This means that the two of us are in the redeployment pool, and shall both be competing for this new post. I am informing you a gesture of solidarity - potential redundancy is a dreadful thing, and I wouldn't put my staff through anything I wouldn't undergo myself! Best of luck, Mike. ** FROM: Beau Studd, Head of Workforce Contentment. TO: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). Mike The UCUnison will smell a rat when they twig that the only person under threat is their Vice-President - we employ 46 catering assistants!!! ** FROM: Mike M. Shart. TO: Beau Studd. We do? Well, that's 46 birds with one stone then - we can make savings. Put the rest of them on redeployment for the new post. ***************************************************** PIANO RECITAL CONCLUDES THE CONCERT SEASON The 2015-16 series of classical Great Hall concerts was brought to an end, appropriately, with a performance by a local artist. The pianist Kathryn Stott was born in Lancashire and throughout her career has held strong links with the north of England: as well as living in Manchester, she is currently the holder of a chair at the Royal Northern College of Music and regularly visits Chethams School of Music. But she also often performs internationally, and has recently played in Australia and New Zealand, the Far East and the USA. In the final concert of the season she played a varied programme which included a range of composers and genres. The concert opened with the Prelude and Fugue no 1, of the 48 by Bach. The prelude is a well-known piece. For instance, it is the basis for the improvisatory arrangement of Ave Maria by the French composer Gounod, which is often used at weddings and funerals. There are many ways of playing the piece on a keyboard. The pianist Glenn Gould has his own characteristic rendition, in which the sustaining pedal is not used at all, and every note is crystal clear. Other pianists prefer to emphasise the harmonic progression by keeping the pedal pressed down, so that the chords build up in a crescendo until, as the harmony moves on, the pedal has to be released. Kathryn Stott used the latter approach: which the listener prefers is a matter of taste. The Bach prelude is an easy piece to play, although possibly not easy to play well. The fugue that follows the prelude is certainly not at all easy - and after the Bach, the programme progressed into areas of greater difficulty for the soloist as it went on. The second item in the programme was the Holberg Suite, by Grieg. This is popular in the well-known arrangement by Grieg himself for string orchestra, but it was a revelation to discover that it was originally written for solo piano. The suite is very effective as a piano piece, demonstrating very effectively that Grieg was not unable to write anything longer than a couple of minutes, as is often contended. The Holberg Suite is a fine sequence which is both appealing to every audience and at the same time musically very accomplished. The first half of the concert was brought to an end with the Variations on a Theme of Corelli, by Rachmaninov. There are twenty variations, and the series is in many ways reminiscent of Rachmaninov’s Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini, although without the orchestra obviously. Rachmaninov was an exceptional musician and a very strong pianist. He wrote works for himself to play, which explains why they are demanding for the soloist. In the second half we heard first Ravel’s le Tombeau de Couperin. Written during the First World War, this is a suite of six movements, each of them dedicated to a friend or colleague who had been killed in the war; but, as the programme notes say, the sequence was also ‘an elegy for French culture. It doesn’t talk directly about the war at all; it talks about eternal values: beauty, elegance, the things we want to preserve - in other words, the opposite of war.’ The final piece on the programme was the last prelude and fugue of the 24 written by Shostakovich. To quote again from the programme notes, this is by far Shostakovich’s greatest work for piano….and one of the greatest preludes and fugues for the piano.’ This concluded what had been a huge programme for the pianist to play, and a most interesting one for the audience to listen to. Kathryn Stott had already given the same programme in a number of venues around the world, and she was in full command of the demands of the pieces she played. It was fitting end to the season of concerts - we look forward to next season. ***************************************************** JOHN URRY: OBITUARY Contributed by Bob Jessop & Andrew Sayer. John Urry, our distinguished colleague, died totally unexpectedly at home on 18 March 2016 and has left a gaping hole in the lives of his loved ones, friends and colleagues. John embodied the distinctive sociological approach that he contributed so much to creating and embedding at Lancaster University. His goals were the pursuit of truth in order to make the world a better place, to be achieved through the practice of collegiality, deference to none, argument with respect, and collaboration around the world. An irreplaceable figure in Lancaster’s academic firmament, he not only guided the development of the Sociology Department, which he joined in 1970, but also the direction of research in the wider university. At various times he was Head of the Sociology Department, Founding Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University Dean of Research, a key player in founding the Institute for Advanced Studies, and the founding Co-Director of the Institute for Social Futures. He also contributed to the direction of research in the wider sociological community and, indeed, the social sciences more generally, with wide-ranging interests that crossed disciplinary boundaries and involved links with the natural and environmental sciences too. John was born on 1 June 1946 and educated at Haberdashers’ Aske’s Boys School, at the time a direct grant school, in Hendon. He gained a double first in Economics and Politics from Christs’ College, Cambridge, where he was supervised by, among others, James Meade, an economist who was subsequently awarded a Nobel prize. These were years when the work of John Maynard Keynes was still taken seriously in Cambridge and where heterodox economics still had a place along with political science and political economy. Christs is also known, inter alia, for the tradition that Students do not rise when Fellows enter and leave the Dining Hall – a lack of deference that John seems to have made his own! John then embarked on a PhD in the Faculty of Economics and Politics (there was no Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Cambridge at this stage) on the topic of relative deprivation and revolution. During this time, he received a research studentship from the Social Science Research Council. This was before Sir Keith Joseph took umbrage at sociologists’ rubbishing of his cultural deprivation theory of family poverty and promptly declared that sociology was not a science and called for the renaming of the SSRC as the Economic and Social Research Council. Later, of course, John would be heavily involved in defending the Social Sciences against similar onslaughts as Chair of the Professors and Heads of Sociology group (1989-92) and, later, in his key role in founding and helping to lead the National Academy of Academics, Learned Societies and Practitioners in the Social Sciences and serving it on the Academy’s Council from 2006 until 2012. Before completing his PhD, John was offered a lectureship in sociology in 1970. During his eventual 46 years of unbroken service to the University, he contributed much to our strong and flexible research culture both personally and through his active role in institution-building. Since the heady days of the 1970s, universities have changed enormously, and the demands placed on academics and scholars have increased hugely. Yet it seems to us that one person didn’t change: John. Throughout these turbulent times, he maintained the same love of learning for its own sake, the same curiosity about social change, the same very evident intellectual pleasure in getting into new subjects and opening up sociology to new topics and ways of thinking – whether it was power, social theory, space, time, localism and regionalism, disorganized capitalism, leisure and tourism, nature and the environment, mobilities, the complexities of global society, energy usage and climate change, the social implications of 3-D printing, and, most recently, social futures. Many of these interests converged in his role in establishing the Institute for Social Futures at Lancaster and his much anticipated contributions to this initiative will be sorely missed. There are many ways to be a distinguished sociologist. John excelled at most of them. But he never pursued fame by deferring to power or by sacrificing his intellectual integrity. He was reassuringly “local” in his loyalties and critical engagement and always provided enthusiastic support to students and colleagues and inspired many other researchers. Through his commitment and dedication, he has indelibly shaped Lancaster University’s unique research culture and showed the virtues of flexible networking. Yet he was equally firmly a “cosmopolitan” with a global intellectual presence. His interests and projects spanned the natural and social worlds and his influence spread globally via personal networks and timely interventions in emerging debates and he gained growing recognition as a public intellectual. John was a “sociologists’ sociologist”, who knew and respected the craft but also aimed to develop it. He was noted for his cutting edge innovations in different fields as well as for his steadfast defence and promotion of the profession against the onslaught of politicians. But he was also a restless intellectual spirit, the antithesis of a professional sociologist. Thus his unlimited curiosity created a mobile life, linking diverse scientific and practical fields and energizing new research initiatives and policy debates. John worked at the leading edge of theoretical, empirical and applied fields in the social sciences more generally, reflecting social trends and shaping innovative work on emerging fields and policy areas. In all these activities, John demonstrated his enormous capacity and love for work. It’s astonishing how much he achieved, in his own writing, in collaborative work, in developing international networks, in promoting social science, in getting research money, in research administration, in negotiating the endless succession of audits, and promoting and defending sociology, the social sciences, and the role of the public intellectual. He seemed to be able to take all this – plus Twitter! - in his stride, while many others felt burdened and distracted by the pressures. And he did all this without ever losing that laid-back, generous, approachable and good-humoured manner; hearing laughter coming from his office down the corridor was a familiar and reassuring part of life in the department. John also had a heroic mind – believing, like C. Wright Mills, author of the classic 1959 text, The Sociological Imagination, that it was more important to say something significant at the risk of being wrong than to always be right by repeating the trivially true. In recent years he was also becoming more active as a public intellectual, intervening in debates and taking stands on issues crucial to the future of humankind. Above all, however, he was a great colleague. He always seemed to set the tone and exemplify the ethos that we hope marks out Lancaster – combining adventurous scholarship and research with collegiality, humility and generosity. Throughout he retained the same warmth and openness to others - positive and constructive, leading by example and gently guiding and enabling rather than dominating. He amazed us by his ability to involve young and not so young scholars in getting research groups going and his influence was multiplied through those whom he inspired and in whose continuing work and debates John will live on. A good living memorial to John would be to maintain and further nurture this spirit of collegiality, commitment, and critical scholarship. (subtext welcomes contributions and letters from readers wishing to share their memories of John Urry). ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, Very sad to hear to hear of John Urry’s death. To add a note to more official tributes. John, one of the second group of appointments to our new Sociology department in 1970, was a pivotal figure in the development of Sociology at Lancaster and beyond, chairing the 1996 RAE Sociology Panel. But, as I wrote after John Hughes’ death (Subtext June 2015), the eight of us also took a leading part in questioning the actions of the then somewhat paternalistic regime at Lancaster. The seminal event was, of course, the proposal by the University to dismiss David Craig, whose Marxist approach to literature had contributed to conflict with his departmental head, Bill Murray, and thus the Top Table. Senate was informed that a clandestine textual analysis by the Department of Educational Research of the examination scripts from David’s course had demonstrated ‘stereotyped’ answers. David responded by visiting each department proposing to student meetings the creation of an alternative, free university of Lancaster. When a postal vote of AUT members decided not to support David’s case against dismissal, John joined a ginger group of academic members of ASTMS to work alongside the Students Union to fight this challenge to academic freedom. Over sandwich lunches in a Lonsdale seminar room we plotted the downfall of the University Management. We marched alongside the students - with mounted police in attendance - to the hearing on the Craig Affair at Ashton Hall, arranged for Clive Jenkins, General Secretary of ASTMS to offer his services, liaised with the Campaign for Academic Freedom led by LSE Professor John Griffith (who negotiated the solution to the Craig affair), briefed the Manchester Guardian and distributed our Alternative Annual Report to members arriving for meetings of University Court. Those indeed were the days... To assist us critique some management edict on academic performance, John, along, I think, with fellow revolutionary Russell Keat, or possibly John King, was dispatched by the ASTMS Academic Group with a brief to define ‘academic work’. If anyone discovers a draft among John’s papers, it would make an interesting contribution to addressing our current condition. John Wakeford ******** Good evening, Spotted the swoosh in the playground area by Pendle. http://oi68.tinypic.com/14udr1s.jpg Mathew Gillings. ******** Dear subtext, Whilst enrolling for my third year modules, I couldn't help but notice that the page icon for the 'Module Details' page features something a bit out-of-date peering in… http://oi63.tinypic.com/2jinuh.jpg Jenni ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, James Groves, Lizzie Houghton, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, Johnny Unger, and Martin Widden.
|
