| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Issue 147 12 May 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, strike, ISS restructure, FST forum, shady BIS-ness, LUSU general meeting, Roses, cranberry juice, Shart Attack, Haçienda review, lack of letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The phoney war is over, the campaigns are in place and they're off! We can look forward to six weeks of bluster, tales of over-bent bananas and - maybe - some sane debate. Will there be any signs of the referendum campaign on campus, though? As subtext reported in its last issue, current levels of student electoral registration in Lancaster are embarrassingly low. True, most students will be on the roll at their vacation addresses, but the referendum is being held in term time - on the Thursday of extrav week, to be exact - so if our students are not registered here, they are unlikely to vote at all. For anyone wishing to vote in the referendum, the registration deadline is midnight on Tuesday 7th June. In the spirit of public service, subtext encourages all its readers with lectures, seminars, careers talks or revision classes between now and the 7th to urge their students to register. Remember - unless they know for certain that they are registered, they probably aren't. Those wishing to enrol should go to: https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote The site suggests that you need your National Insurance number to register, but this is not in fact required. subtext is not sure which sight would be more depressing on referendum day - hundreds of students being turned away because they failed to register, or no-one on campus voting at all. ***************************************************** STRIKE WHILE YOU STILL CAN Following a ballot for industrial action to support its latest pay claim, the University and College Union (UCU) has announced that the action will commence with a two-day strike on 25th and 26th May. On a turnout of 35.5%, 65.4% voted for strike action, with 77.3% in favour of 'action short of a strike'. In terms of turnout this is quite high for UCU but it should be noted that once the terms of the Trade Union Act 2016 come into force this would not be a valid mandate as it does not meet the 50% threshold. UCU has demanded a substantial pay increase aimed at restoring the value of salaries which have declined in value by over 14% since 2009. During the same period vice-chancellors have awarded themselves huge pay increases to the extent that their average salary now stands at over £270k. The union is also demanding action to address two long-running issues in the HE Sector: casualization of academic staff on fixed-term contracts, and the gender pay gap. The response of the employers' negotiation body UCEA has been an offer of 1.1%. Vice-chancellors are to get 3%. UCU has made it clear that at this stage 'action short of a strike' will consist of working strictly to contract from 25th May and will not involve a marking boycott. However, UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt has indicated that if there is not a significant improvement in the UCEA offer then the union will escalate the action to include a marking boycott and disruption of student admissions in the new academic year. Lancaster UCU will be holding a members' meeting to discuss the industrial action at 1.00 pm on Wednesday, 18th May, in the Marcus Merriman Lecture Theatre. How far the industrial action will affect Lancaster is yet to be seen, though the local UCU branch is confident that it will be widely supported. However, two factors have the potential to complicate matters on our own campus. The first is the attitude that will be taken by the Vice-Chancellor. Readers will recall that during the last dispute (over pension changes) in 2014 the VC threatened a lockout of staff who took part in two-hour strikes, a threat way out of line with the position taken by most other universities. Readers will also be aware (see subtext 146) that former UCEA Chief Executive Jocelyn Prudence has taken up residence in University House with an as-yet-unspecified role supporting the VC. During her time leading UCEA she was well-known for her hard-line stance when it came to dealing with the trade unions. What advice, we wonder, will she be giving the VC during the current dispute? And how far will this guidance conflict with the more conciliatory line likely to be taken by HR Director Paul Boustead? ***************************************************** NOW YOU SEE THEM, NOW UCU DON'T? A second complicating factor in this dispute is the redundancy threat aimed at UCU Branch Secretary Andrew Lucas. Many readers will be aware that a restructuring programme within ISS has put a number of posts at risk, and Andrew Lucas's is one of them. There is a strong suspicion among UCU members that the ISS Director may be using the restructuring as an opportunity to get rid of this 'meddlesome priest'. That this has come within weeks of a joint University-UCU Partnership Agreement, supposedly signalling a new era of co-operation, has increased local UCU officers' sense of bitterness and betrayal. All the signs are that the local branch is moving towards a formal dispute on this matter at the same time as the national industrial action. It doesn't bode well for industrial relations in the weeks to come. The redundancy threat aimed at Mr Lucas isn't the first to be made (and followed through) towards members of the union executive at Lancaster, and the intended means of enacting it is strikingly similar to a nifty trick that is enjoying increased usage. It is increasingly common, now, for institutions to get rid of specific people by announcing small scale, seemingly random restructures in which the target's job is one of the only ones threatened. In this method, an abolished post is replaced by one that is almost identical, save for a small number of new responsibilities which those devising the remit know the target isn't experienced in. So, approach your target with teeth and smiles, invite them to apply for redeployment into the new post, interview them, tell them they don't quite meet the criteria, add a drop of vinegar and bang! - the dirt is gone! Even if the process stinks to high heaven of a targeted campaign to get rid of a person rather than a post, everything is officially above board, and there is no recourse for anybody to oppose it on procedural grounds. subtext is sure that this is absolutely not the case when it comes to the ISS restructure. Or the restructure of HR that took place two years ago. ***************************************************** A GOOD DAY TO BURY A FACULTY FORUM subtext notices that this week, just 48 hours after UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt unveiled Wednesday 25th and Thursday 26th May as national strike days, the Faculty of Science & Technology announced the date of this term's faculty forum. Yes, you've guessed it - Wednesday 25th May it is! Anyone would think that FST didn't value contributions from trade union activists . . . ***************************************************** MINDING OUR OWN BIS-NESS April was not a happy month in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. But while trouble was brewing in the steel works, further trouble manifested itself in the piping, springing two leaks of interest to higher education. The first, revealed to The Telegraph, outlined proposals to fire more than 4,000 civil servants over the next four years. The Times Higher delved further, and found that of these 4,000 jobs, 265 were recommended to come from the research councils, and a further 12 from the Office for Fair Access (which only has 18 at present). Last year's Green paper outlined plans to merge the research council into one Research Council UK, and OFFA with HEFCE, to create the Orwellian titled Office for Students. It also suggested that, in policy terms, research and teaching would be completely separate, and envisaged a greater role for BIS and the Student Loans Company in the allocation of teaching funding, the real logic behind this having been perhaps unwittingly revealed through the second BIS-related leak. The Telegraph, who were on a roll, got hold of a snapped Number 10 memo on the HE White Paper due to be published with the Queen's Speech (next week for those keeping track). Amongst its insights were that "BIS are trying to solve real problems of quality and regulation. But it is not clear they have figured out how." A more scathing summation than even subtext could offer. The memo laments the fact that "price competition hasn't emerged" following the introduction of the higher fee level, a fact so obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of the workings of the sector that 18-year-olds could have told them – and did – this would be the case. It adds: "Education across the spectrum - from some in the Russell group to courses … through FE [further education] colleges - do not offer the quality and intensity of teaching we expect for 9k." This poses an interesting, and as yet unanswered question of what exactly they did expect. For a government that appears hell bent on measuring primary and secondary teaching quality through endless pupil assessments, it must be a great cause of frustration that they can't impose similar measures on tertiary education. Perhaps the Green Paper's recommendation that BIS be given some responsibility for the allocation of teaching funding is rooted in finding a means by which BIS can have more say in what is taught and how? The memo, beyond being a frank admission of the failure of a policy whose only accomplishment was wiping out England's second oldest political party (subtext welcomes corrections on this point, and acknowledges it has opted for rhetoric over fact here), does perhaps provide the most candid explanation for the introduction of the TEF: if you can't measure quality by assessing students, do it by assessing their teachers. It may appear fanciful to draw comparisons with forced academisation, but that U-turned plan and the increase in fees both point to ideology, rather than evidence – or indeed research – being the driving force of education policy in England today. Over the past year the government has picked fights with teachers and doctors, so it seems logical that they would think next to go after doctors who teach. Enter the fray the UCU strike scheduled now for the end of May, and while the union so far seems likely to make it an issue of pay, it might be more beneficial if they look at taking a leaf out of the BMA's book: fighting for the bigger picture rather than simply pointing the finger solely at employers. There is something inherently rotten in the state of HE, but then few would have needed a leak to tell them that. ***************************************************** DISABLING ACT In subtext 146, we reported on LUSU's impending general meeting, at which drastic changes to its constitution and governance structures (their explanatory graphic is somewhat redolent of GCSE Geography diagrams on water cycles, and therefore engaging to students, we're sure: http://tinyurl.com/jzqgleh) were to be voted upon. In particular, we noted that LUSU's constitution dictates that quoracy is to be established by counting the number of members present, an inconvenient fact that flies in the face of officers' insistence that proxy voting (a new addition) counts towards quoracy (subtext posited a scenario of a chair and a minute taker in an empty room, counting proxy votes and declaring quorum). subtext learns that LUSU had a robust answer to the constitutional conundrum: because the clause on quoracy contains the modal verb 'shall', and not 'must', the ruling is not sacrosanct, and open to interpretation. This explanation is best described, to use legal parlance, as "made up". Thankfully, the SU quickly backtracked on this rather idiosyncratic interpretation. Despite apparently receiving somewhere in the region of 400 proxy votes, no business was conducted at the general meeting - with only 150 members present, it was inquorate, and there were crestfallen faces all round. In the aftermath, some officers took to angrily shaking their fists at the 'outdated' and 'broken' structures, lamenting the fact that they didn't allow "over 400 voices to be heard". subtext wonders if the initial impression given - that one could cast a proxy vote rather than turn up and vote in person - had more than a little to do with the poor attendance. If these 400 voices were so passionate and hadn't been given the option to passively open an email and click a link, would they have turned up to the general meeting? Then came the complaints about the notion of a general meeting. They are outmoded, LUSU insists, and it is little surprise that few showed up. An odd proclamation, given that general meetings are to remain in the proposed new structures, and will be the only public, accountable, policy-making body that all students can attend. This also casts shade on last academic year's GM, at which over 280 students showed up and passed policy on fee and rent increases. And the one the year before, where over 300 students showed up to condemn the closure of the Music degree. And the one the year before, where over 300 students showed up to oppose the business process review. It's almost as though students DO show up and take an interest in their Union when a good job has been done of promoting the issues, and when students have been effectively educated and enthused. The intention is now to put the question to a referendum. This will take place during week 8, at the same time as the elections for some of the very posts that LUSU proposes to abolish! ***************************************************** COMING UP ROSES Roses matches are nearly always won by the home teams, so it was no surprise that Lancaster, competing on their home turf, were the victors this year. Something to do with home support, and most of the away team having to sleep on hard floors perhaps. But the margin of the victory this year, by 216.5 points to 134.5, was much more convincing than usual. Opinions differ as to why this was. One major factor was the focus placed on women's sport this year at Lancaster, with the campaign slogan #ThisRosesGirlCan. This certainly paid off, as could be seen on the Saturday afternoon, when result after result from the women's teams chalked up a Lancaster victory. The slogan hooks on to the national Sport England campaign, whose website claims this is 'the first campaign of its kind to feature women who sweat and jiggle as they exercise'. It looks as if the national emphasis on women's sport may have been taken more seriously at Lancaster than at York, and this provided some excellent results for Lancaster on the day. Another significant factor appears to have been the excellent team spirit on Lancaster's side, as men's teams supported the women and vice versa. And this extended well beyond the sports teams, with grounds staff and Sports Centre staff staying on well beyond their working day to give support and enjoy the atmosphere. The Roses weekend has become a big family occasion, with all sorts of entertainment available well beyond just sport. Beyond the competitive aspect, all Roses teams from both universities signed up to the Respect the Rose Pledge, which sets out a code of behaviour for the whole event. It's too long to reproduce in subtext, but broadly it calls for exemplary behaviour and zero tolerance for, well, any kind of intolerance. The Pledge may be long, but it seems to have worked. So, congratulations to everyone involved in Roses 2016. It was clearly a success on all counts. ***************************************************** OVERHEARD IN A CAMPUS HOSTELRY "A pint of cranberry juice, please." "I'm afraid we can't serve it in pints. We only have the one size?" Peter Kay voce: "Whatsalltharrabout?!" ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK FROM: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U). TO: All remit enactors. BCC: Hewlett Venkklinne, Head of External Reputational Maintenance (Internal); Wilbur Je'June, President, LuVE-U NSS Completion Facilitation Unit. SUBJECT: Rhododendrons. Dear all, You will no doubt have received my announcement last weekend that LuVE-U won the 52nd annual Rhododendrons tournament, a sportsing competition between ourselves and our friendly rivals, the Foss Facilitators of Success University (FFS-U). You may have noticed that the results of the traditional croquet game between each institution's Vice-Chancellor have yet to be published. This is because they were contentious, and produced a lot of data requiring analysis. Hewlett has since finished crunching the numbers, and I am pleased to reveal the following outcomes from that competition: - LuVE-U came out #1 in the North West. - 90% of the crowd were satisfied with LuVE-U's performance (particularly impressive, given that most of those surveyed were from our rival university!). - LuVE-U spent more money on training and coaching per head. - I bought a khaki tracksuit from Marks and Spencer especially for the occasion; their lot were loafing around in clothes that had clearly not been designed for serious sportsing. - My teammate and I occasionally stood to one side to discuss tactics: who's to say that they didn't nudge their balls across the green while we weren't looking? - If I'm not as good as that flash git from FFS-U, it's probably because I'm too busy running an aspirational top ten university (something he knows nothing about) to waste my time learning the rules of croquet. - We need to invest in some grounds maintenance - I'm certain there were bumps all over the lawn. All staff who have recently been released (e.g. from our Technology Wellness Accumulation and Tracking Service) to spread their LuVE-U-acquired skills in other roles will be invited to reapply as Grass Levelling Assistants (University). - Next year we're playing bowls instead. So, a positive outcome for all concerned. Well done, LuVE-U! Dilly-ding, dilly-dong! Mike. ***************************************************** REVIEW – CLASSIC, CLASSICAL, CLASSY Brilliant blue sky turning slowly into a glorious sunset. Thumping rhythmic music emanating from an outdoor stage. Thousands of people dancing, sunbathing, chatting, laughing, and eventually eating and drinking after queuing for ages. It could be a good day at any summer festival, anywhere... except this was rather different. For one thing, this event, Haçienda Classical, took place in Lancaster's very own Williamson Park, just below the Ashton Memorial, which looked rather fetching bathed first in the hot sunlight of the best day yet this spring, then in yellow spotlights (for cystic fibrosis awareness). Around 3000 attendees, average age somewhere north of 30, draped themselves on the slopes and rocks beside the monument, catching the last of the evening rays as they waited for the real music to begin. And rather than the latest pop sensation or I-was-into-them-before-they-were-famous hipster indie band, the stage was filled at various points with a rather curious cohort: two old-school club DJs from the heydey of Manchester's Haçienda club in the 80s and 90s, Mike Pickering and Graeme Park; the 90s rapper MC Tunes, who strutted around introducing people and egging on the crowd like an overenthusiastic Ibiza holiday rep; former Joy Division and New Order bassist, and Haçienda owner, Peter Hook; Rowetta from off of the X-Factor and the Happy Mondays; a backing choir of gospel singers; oh, and around 50 world-class classical musicians in the form of the renowned Manchester Camerata orchestra. Musically literate Lancastrians may have wondered how this could possibly work, and even if they didn't shell out for the £35 tickets, they will have had a chance to make up their own minds, as the results of this unlikely conglomeration of musical directions and eras was clearly audible across the town, from Moorside to Marsh. But for subtext's very own rave correspondent, and for the vast majority of the clubbers in attendance, there is no question that it did indeed work. The hours-long queues to get in, for the bar and for toilets didn't matter. The occasional feedback and levelling problems with the sound didn't matter. The somewhat clumsy rapping by MC Tunes didn't matter. The late start and early finish didn't matter. Instead, the weather, the setting and the wonderfully weird combination of musicians playing house classics all conspired to create a gloriously chilled and happy vibe. One can only hope that this is not the last event of its kind, and feel that Lord Ashton would have approved of this rather unusual use of his park. Though perhaps not of the ticket price. ***************************************************** LETTERS There aren't any. Come on, readers! ***************************************************** 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.
|