| subtext | |
| Home
|
subtext | Truth: lies open to all Issue 154 - "powered by the internet of things" 24/11/2016 ***************************************************** Fortnightly during term time. Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk Back issues & subscription details: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext In this issue: editorial, ucu ballots, fees and interest, staff survey, the spine, even more league tables, student politics, student juries, troubles overseas, the cloud, spirited yoofs, shart attack, more troubles overseas, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL "Nothing indicates that it will be a good end... The spectre is there again, inside and outside the frontiers of the advanced societies." Readers familiar with Herbert Marcuse may recognise the sentiment. Readers who are not would do well to add him to their Christmas list. Marcuse emigrated to the States in 1934, back when that was the sensible thing to do. He wrote a few things about totalitarian tendencies and barbarism. He’d have a thing or two to write about today. Like Marcuse, we are facing a future that seems like it is not going to have a good end. Post-truth has been announced as a word of the year. We’re told society has had enough of experts, of informed debate, and critical thinking. However, in these besieged but hallowed halls of academia we cannot turn our back on society: we don’t get to opt out of truth, whatever it may be. Because, perhaps part of the reason why the future looks like it will not have a good end is because we did turn our backs and opt out for too long. When seats of knowledge measure impact through revenue rather than challenging perspectives; when student opinion matters more than students’ critical reflections; when problem solving becomes just another employability skill we do education and wider society a disservice. We’ve written a lot about uncertainty this term, both the uncertainty facing higher education and facing society in general. This is now a plea. To students, to staff, and to the people who represent them. Our common cause is education. We need to use it. To question; to confront; to challenge. Don’t be beholden to popular opinion, because you have the great advantage of knowledge. Use it. Grapple with it. Challenge with it. And help others to challenge with it too. Educators have a duty to not be neutral, because knowledge and power cannot be neutral. The spectre is here again. And the NSS won’t save us from it. ***************************************************** UCU BALLOT RESULT - WE'RE HAPPY And so it ended, to no one's great surprise. The results of the UCU indicative ballot on whether to continue industrial action were announced on 15 November. A total of 8,916 members responded, of which 51.9% agreed that the UCEA revised offer of 1.1% was "a sufficient basis for further detailed joint work with the employers on gender pay and casualisation at both UK and local level" and just 43.4% were "prepared to take sustained industrial action to improve an unsatisfactory offer". Missing from the official announcement was the turnout figure. Can we work this out? Well, when members voted (by 65.4% to 34.6%, with 21,141 members participating) in favour of strike action in May this year, the turnout was quoted by the local UCU as being 36%, pointing to an eligible electorate of 58,725. Assuming the same number of members were balloted this term, subtext concludes that the recent turnout was 15.2%, meaning that just 6.6% of eligible members voted to continue the industrial action. UCU members are used to a narrow margin in favour of action, on a low turnout, leading to a tactical call by the UCU Higher Education Committee - can the union sustain action with this level of support? Well, there'll be no need for the HEC to make that call this time. The local UCU feels that it has been let down by the union's national leadership. Could the national UCU have done more? As reported in subtext 153, the turnout to the most recent Lancaster UCU General Meeting wasn't exactly indicative of a membership clamouring for action. Doubtless UCEA will see this as a vindication of their strategy. Meanwhile, the campaigning continues - today is UCU's day of action against precarious work. Members are being encouraged to take a selfie next to a UCU poster and tweet their support using #anticas16. That ought to sought it. ***************************************************** CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Professional services have been doing a round of visits to various groups of staff (though we are unsure why these gatherings are described as visits as they tend to be held away from the buildings where people actually work). During the course of one such visit the subject of tuition fee increases was broadly skirted around. subtext understands that the central thrust of the point being made was that tuition fee increases are, at present, modest and reflect the very low inflation rate. Nicola Owen, Chief Administrative Officer and Sarah Randall-Paley, Director of Finance looked almost cheerful at the possibility that inflation rates might be set to rise and that this would enable the University to screw (ahem, generate income from) our students more effectively. The dynamic duo failed to appreciate that the assembled throng did not share their pleasure in the prospect of the institution having another opportunity to increase revenue. subtext recognises that the University making money is in our best interests, whether directly or indirectly. However, in displaying the aforementioned cheer we wonder whether they stopped to consider the impact of rising inflation on staff. Rising costs of essentials and the certain increases in interest rates on borrowing might not be great news to us humble workers. Forgive us please if we do not share in said cheer. Our question is this: are our senior management team prepared to recognise the increase in the cost of living that higher inflation will bring and provide their hard-working staff (that's all of us by the way) with a similar increase in our wages? Can they announce a decent pay rise for us all with a similarly gleeful demeanour? If not then we suspect a number of staff will be delivering a proportionally lower percentage of commitment to their roles. ***************************************************** APPARENTLY THERE'S SOME KIND OF STAFF SURVEY GOING ON AT THE MOMENT Each year, Lancaster staff spend a significant amount of their time cajoling our students to complete the National Student Survey. We beg, we encourage, we reason. One question, though - does our relentless prodding succeed mostly in winding our students up? Well, here's our annual chance to gain some insight into the student experience, because as every staff member not currently doing fieldwork on Pluto will know, it's the annual staff survey! subtext gets the feeling that HR is really, really keen for us to supply our thoughts. We've had weekly emails every Monday, initially fairly matter-of-fact: "We want you to give us your honest views on what it is like to work at Lancaster so we know what we’re doing well and what we need to improve." (7 Nov) If that didn't work, we appeal to your better nature: "It's important to complete the Staff Survey to ensure your voice is heard! This is your opportunity to give your views on a range of topics so that important aspects of working life within the University can be assessed." (14 Nov) If you're still not persuaded, we're going to very subtly suggest that this is an offer you can't refuse: "It is so important for everyone to share their views on key issues to ensure the results for Lancaster University really reflect how staff feel. We know how busy you are, but your response is important and the survey only takes about 20 to 25 minutes to complete." (21 Nov) The message is reinforced through weekly appeals in LU Text and regular reminders from each department's 'Staff Survey Champion'. Some of these messages touch on the passive-aggressive, especially the updates on the percentage of staff in each department who have completed the survey (the implication being "not you, though."). subtext knows that this approach is tried and tested, and like most of you, we'll probably give in eventually and complete the thing, before the messages start sounding like a memo from Tony Soprano. But does it really have to be like this? If we really were content with our lot, would we need to be subject to this major lobbying campaign? Tell us your experiences. Please. Go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on. ***************************************************** FIRST, PLANT YOUR JUNGLE After enough coverage of the Spine refurbishment project to last several lifetimes (see subtext 146), your subtext correspondent decided to undertake a pole-to-pole audit of the current building progress to coincide with his journey from Bowland to Grad Bar last Tuesday afternoon. Number of men in hard hats spotted: 0 Number of new shelters to replace the demolished ones spotted: 0 Number of temporary fence units cordoning off parts of the spine spotted: 0 Number of noticeable changes spotted since most of the pillars and shelters were demolished in August: 0 It's not going well, then. The much trumpeted revolution of the Spine, the most radical proposal of which is to tear down the covered walkway and pillars which have been a feature since the campus's inception, is intended to be completed within 18 months from the start date, which was August. Now, given that 18 months from August comprises two winters, and given that Lancaster endures some particularly harsh winters, and given that last winter was so bad that the city was literally flooded, and given that parts of the campus don't react well to heavy rainfall (see: the underpass), you would think that priority one would be to erect the new covered walkway as swiftly as the old one was demolished. Not so. Everyone is getting, quite frankly, soaked. The lack of shelter across campus has also resulted in some rather nasty, deep puddles that hitherto had been prevented by the canopy. subtext tries not to adopt a nimbyist stance on construction matters, but really, if Japan can fix a 98ft sinkhole in a city centre road in two days, is it really beyond an extremely well paid private construction firm (Rick Mather Associates) to put up some tarpaulin as a temporary measure? In fact, is it really beyond an extremely well paid private construction firm to do some bloody work? As far as your correspondent can see, absolutely nothing has happened on the Spine since September. While the university website outlining the changes notes that work will resume from 28 November, there is no mention of a new covered walkway. There is plenty of mention of planted areas, levelled pathways and widened stairways, which while a part of the plan, hardly seem as urgent as some rudimentary shelter. Still. Far be it from subtext to complain about campus looking like a building site - our campus has resembled one for the vast majority of its existence, and the unique experience of witnessing its development is always a good story for those of us who like to lament to youngsters about the days when "this was all cobbles". ***************************************************** A BELEAGUERED INSTITUTION We love a good league table at Lancaster University: top 100 in the world, top 10 in the UK, top in the North West. One league table we might not be so keen to mention however is the People & Planet University League, which ranks universities according to their ethical and environmental policies and practices. Lancaster is currently 52nd (see http://tinyurl.com/jnfq8tf for a detailed breakdown), and while this is a 32 place improvement on its 2013 ranking, we are lagging considerably behind some of our often-mentioned 'comparator institutions'. To mention just a few, Exeter is joint 16th, while Warwick and Edinburgh are joint 34th. We're not even close to top in the North West, with UCLan and Bradford ahead of us, while MMU reached third overall. The breakdown of the score reveals that People & Planet judge Lancaster to be doing particularly badly at Carbon Management (0%), because of a lack of a published plan, though it has done surprisingly well (90%) at carbon reduction - most likely because of the University's wind turbine. More worrying perhaps are the low scores in the Workers' Rights category (15%), Education for Sustainable Development (10%) and Ethical Investment (10%) categories. While 43 universities have now divested from fossil fuels, Lancaster shows no signs of following them (see subtext 148). No trebles all round in University House over this league table! ***************************************************** YELLOW BELLIED POLITICS The Green Party’s local election posters remind campus that statistics were damned lies long before post-truth came along. Readers may have spotted the brightly coloured barcharts informing campus residents that "the Green Party have won seats at the last two [campus] elections". The charts have the Greens top, with Labour second. It isn’t clear what election results these charts are referring to, given that the actual percentages for the 2015 University and Scotforth Rural ward election were Lab 36%, Gre 32%, Con 26%, LD 7%. This gave the Greens just one of the three seats up for grabs, with the other two going to Labour. It may be that the Greens' barchart refers to the 2014 by-election on campus, but that was when the ward didn't include Cartmel or Lonsdale. Still, when it comes to playing fast and loose with the truth, this bit of statistical wizardry comes in at a poor second on subtext’s barchart. First place must go to the Liberal Democrat 'grassroots' support. While it is always news when a student comes out as a Lib Dem, one motley group of radicals decided the best medium for political discourse would be the official photos of the Students’ Union nightclub. One such photo from Friday night showed three students holding signs encouraging others to vote for the Lib Dem candidate. One of the students was drawing the viewer's attention to a smaller message written on one sign, which - while we won’t quote it directly - stated that the Labour candidate was fond of touching baby goats. The Sugarhouse has since removed the photo from its Facebook page, but it was visible to the Sugarhouse’s 17,216 followers for about 12 hours. subtext spoke with the Lib Dem candidate who said she was not aware of the slur or photo, and indeed seemed very upset to have it associated with her campaign. But in this post-truthy, political name-cally world one can't help but wonder if student politics is simply mirroring 'big' politics, or if big politics has simply lowered itself to the level of campus hijinks. ***************************************************** THE STUDENT JURY DECIDES Readers will be aware that the new LUSU Constitution has introduced the concept of the student jury as a means of making decisions on proposals for union action from individual students and groups (see subtext 151). The first such jury has now taken place and its ‘verdicts’ have been announced. The jury, composed of 12 to 18 randomly-selected members, had been asked to decide on two proposals. The first wanted LUSU to go further in its commitment to "protect the environment" by replacing disposable coffee cups in its outlets with reusable plastic cups instead. In addition, the use of plastic bags should be discouraged by raising the price from 5 pence to 20 pence per bag and by subsidising the sale of reusable bags. The jury took an essentially pragmatic view of these proposals. It didn’t think that an outright ban on plastic coffee cups would change student behaviour (they’d simply get their coffee elsewhere on campus) and individuals were more likely to use reusable cups if there were incentives to do so, such as price reductions for the coffee or a deposit scheme for the cups. The jury also decided that the quadrupling of the cost of plastic bags would prove to be very unpopular, given that the cost of living was such a hot issue. Environmental protection would best be served by setting up more recycling collection points and doing more to raise student awareness of the importance of recycling. Consequently, the proposal was rejected. The second proposal was for a change to the Constitution to prevent LUSU from campaigning on political issues other than higher education and the cost of living. The jury was helped in its deliberations by the presentation of additional 'evidence' which included further information from the proposer, a statement from LUSU Executive Committee, an analysis of the effects of such a change by a PhD student researching the student experience in HE, and a 12-chapter document on the Israel/Palestine conflict from the Friends of Palestine Society. The proposer did not help his case by stating that the restriction on political campaigning should also include the banning of support for campus unions taking industrial action. Although there was sympathy for the notion that students should not have political campaigns foisted on them by their union, the jury was swayed by the LUSU Executive statement and the analysis of the PhD student, both of which pointed out that the proposal, if passed, would severely restrict the Union’s ability to campaign on a wide range of issues that many students would deem to be relevant and important, and would in effect prevent LUSU from pursuing a large part of its charitable aims. The proposal to limit political campaigning was rejected. ***************************************************** SECTION 15 subtext has been getting 'hot under the collar' about the recent developments in LUSU but it has been pointed out to us that the situation at our Malaysian partner university, Sunway, would surely cause even our senior management group to raise an eyebrow or two. The Malaysian Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 indicates that children under the age of 15 cannot participate in protests, and those under 21 are barred from organising one. Section 15 of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, while allowing students the right to become members of any political party, does not allow them to stand for election or hold any posts in student societies, organisations, bodies or groups on campus. Whatever happened to ‘spreading liberal values’? ***************************************************** UP THE BACKEND (Contributed article) LUSU’s struggles to get to grips with NUS Digital, a franchised digital platform for students’ union websites, continue. When adding students to their respective colleges on the new 'UnionCloud' system (which allows society and JCR executives to update their own web pages and manage their membership details) ready for the big elections push next week LUSU, apparently not ones for trial runs, neglected to check that students were being added as university MEMBERS, rather than ADMINS. The latter ranking allows anybody with a student number to do as they please to any webpage on the LUSU website. What happened next? A sudden, unheralded rebranding of Furness College as 'Harambe College', after Cincinnati’s slain gorilla. On the slightly dodgier side of this, group admins briefly had access to the membership of societies and colleges through the LUSU backend. The available information included full names, graduation years, dates of birth and nationalities, as well as their university email addresses. Would any armchair lawyers within the subtext readership care to comment on the view that the Data Protection Act might take on this? It's hard to tell how many students were granted this access, but it was enough that LUSU felt the need to lock off the website for the remainder of the weekend. As of Monday, the website was back up but admin rights for all groups – even societies – were still blocked. And where does this leave the elections, which many colleges have been planning for weeks? At an emergency summit, LUSU presented three options: push everything back by 48 hours, push everything back by a week, or open nominations on schedule and allow candidates to nominate themselves through a Qualtrics form (a glorified Google form) until LUSU’s usual systems were repaired? There were some rather heated opinions amongst the assembled officers, although to their credit, LUSU did apologise for the cockup in an email. Option three won out, but we'll see how making nominations even more bureaucratic works out. If anything, it's perfect practice for College life. ***************************************************** UCUM IF YOU WANT TO Every year, the University of Cumbria Rugby Union B league pays a visit to campus to face off against our own 'ruggar buggars'. Come celebrations or commiserations, they still pay a visit to the campus hostelries. With them, they bring a lengthy litany of public disorder offences. A few years ago they stole the Bowland Bar hotplate. Another year there was an incident involving a full bladder and the entrance to Grad Bar. Last year they trashed Cartmel Bar's toilets, committing other acts of vandalism along the way. This year, bars closed early to avoid them, although one early bird managed to steal all of the white balls from the pool tables in every bar, as well as vandalise the furniture and toilets in Lonsdale Bar. It's an annual occurrence, and like any annual occurrence, there is a pattern of behaviour. The UCUM rugby lads often cover their tracks by introducing themselves as students of Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). This year was no different, and one young man duly stated his 'place of study', before announcing to his tribe: "right lads, Sugar!" How an 'MMU student' would be so familiar with the colloquialisms of Lancaster University is beyond us, But, the circle is closing. Next year, we'll 'ave 'em. ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK From: Nonnie Tudur, President, LuVE-U Students' Charitable Membership Organisation (LUSCMO) Dear Vice-Chancellor, First, I must qualify this gross imposition of myself on your valuable time, and these brief paragraphs of unwarranted impudence, by reiterating that we at the NNS Completition Unit greatly value the lavishings of grant money you bestow upon us annually for little reward other than a liberal delegation of final say over our activities and political output. Having conducted various Facebook polls on the subject, I have been requested by the student body to enquire politely about the refurbishment of the vertebrae. We at LUSCMO know that Facilities must be working very hard on it, but we're still waiting for the new covered walkway to be erected. A lot of students are complaining that they're getting wet, and in such unforgiving weather as we've been experiencing, these complaints are coming thicker and faster. I was wondering if you could offer me your guidance in responding to the students? Sorry again, *** From: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U) For CHRIST'S sake!! Get a load of this gross imposition on my valuable time. Where she gets off forwarding her brief paragraphs of unwarranted impudence I do not know. But I hold you responsible, Baz. This was supposed to be ready at the start of term, after all. Alma - this had better be brilliant. *** From: Alma Wyndebrake, Provost of Appeasement Strategy Dear all, LuVE-U prides itself on pioneering the student experience, and advocating for the needs of the student body. We have a consultative approach, and when the students speak, we listen. For example, in last year's NSS you said that you wanted campus to be 'good.' To that end, we took your feedback, and last year we were proud to open a fully stocked on-campus branch of Nandos, replacing the tired and outdated Ecumenical Centre in the process. Just recently, I have been engaging in a productive two-way dialogue with the President of the Students' Charitable Membership Organisation, and she informs me that the main issue on the student agenda is the inclement weather on campus. You all know the feeling - you're off to the bus stop, ready for a fun night out at the SugarSlave enjoying the latest bangin’ beats from Ibiza, and you find your carefully coiffed hairdo drenched and ruined. Well, no more. I am pleased to announce that after extensive consultation and persuasion, the head of Facilities Facilitation has agreed to immediately commence work on a covered walkway - a shelter which will cover the Vertebrae from North to South. Obviously, this will require several months of preliminary negotiation and budgeting, but I have been assured that this project will be completed by March 2018. You are most welcome, Alma Wyndebrake. ***************************************************** STILL FAILING TO ACT Today, more than 65 million people are forcibly displaced as a result of violent conflicts, economic deprivation and natural disasters. In 2015 alone, over 1 million refugees, displaced persons and other migrants, have made their way to the EU. While we have seen many volunteers providing immediate help for them, the response of most European governments has been limited to collecting drowned bodies and intensifying border controls. It is only very recently that the higher education community has become alert to its role in assisting those who are forced to flee violence and abandon their education. In the last decade, higher education institutions have produced a plethora of innovative research compilations, commentaries, and reports dealing with global mobility. Unfortunately, an explosion of research and theorising has not been accompanied by hands-on action and lobbying efforts. In the midst of growing xenophobia, hate crime and blunt stigmatisation of refugees and ‘economic migrants’, universities have assumed an ambivalent stance, providing only residual and de-politicised assistance in form of competitive scholarships and fragmented fee waivers. The issue matters because so little attention is paid to the role of education in humanitarian situations. British universities prize themselves on having a long history of offering refuge to those in need; whether those fleeing Nazism in the 1930s, Hungary in 1956 or Chile after 1973. British academia possesses both the critical resources and intellectual leverage to politicise the ongoing violence and reach out to those fleeing oppression, human rights abuses, and poverty. Despite omnipresent budgetary cuts, universities still hold enough power to transform campuses into sanctuaries for traumatised students and their families. And yet, one is left to wonder why the spirit of generosity is so difficult to come about. To be fair certain actions have already taken place. In September 2015, Citizens UK, in partnership with the Campaign for the Public University, launched a petition calling on all UK Vice-Chancellors to provide bursaries and scholarships for refugee students and academics, arguing that “the time is right for a sector-wide response and a public commitment”. The University of East London (UEL) led the way by announcing that it would grant ten fees-only scholarships to Syrian postgraduate students. A growing number of other universities are now developing their own scholarship programmes, fee waiver schemes, and collaborations with groups like Article 26 to ease access to higher education for asylum seekers already in the UK. However these moves fall far short of some of the initiatives of the past. There have been no high-profile calls for a bold new scholarship programme for refugee students and no sector-wide action to denounce the wars in Syria and Yemen or challenge restrictive immigration policies. Lancaster University, once a leading agent in granting assistance to students fleeing the apartheid regime of South Africa, has yet to offer the most basic support. Despite its critical coverage of the refugee crisis, the university has failed to provide an institutional voice to those on campus who identify with the refugee cause. Even the student-led initiative to get the University to create a scholarship programme aimed at refugees (Red-Rose-Refugee) was not seized by decision makers. As such, there are no scholarships, fee waivers, language programmes, or any other activities which could offer support and bridge the educational gap of university-age refugees. As Lancaster University devises expensive marketing strategies to attract international students, the plight of refugees and migrants remains of secondary importance (or perhaps of no importance at all). The principle of helping refugee students and academics has a long and proud history that students, university leaders and policymakers would do well to reflect – and indeed act – on in the current crisis. ***************************************************** LETTERS As one of the very last to be elected by Court to the University Council (and indeed also elected in the same way to the post of Deputy Pro-Chancellor) I was interested to read in subtext a proposal for a limited reversion to that practice. Much lip-service is paid to the importance of stakeholders in a variety of organisations. At Lancaster the Court embodies a wide range of stakeholders and its annual meeting attracts a considerable attendance from a wide-range of people some of whom travel long distances. Important discussions and debates take place at that annual event, but all too often there seems to be little subsequent development. Holding more frequent Court meetings would raise organisational problems, but the direct election of one or two members to the University’s governing body would surely add meaning to those discussions and debates. It would also be easy for those elected to report back as and when appropriate via LUtext and/or subtext. Stanley Henig ******** [In subtext 153, we asked who was responsible for putting up a number of posters around campus supporting a right-wing coup in Venezuela.] This was an initiative from a couple of Venezuelan members from the Latin American society - not an official Latin American Society stance but it’s being promoted across Facebook by individual members. [Name and address supplied] ******** Dear Subtext, Whilst I would usually be the last person to defend managerialism and management-speak, I do feel that your item on the university’s brand guidelines was unfair in some places. The associative meanings of typefaces, like those of most other things, can be measured using a set of semantic differential scales. So, given a representative sample of respondents, no problem in assessing “gravitas and authority”. I discussed such things in an undergraduate lecture only the other week; indeed, there are some published semantic differential norms for some typefaces, at least for the dimensions of pleasantness, power, and activity. And “Humanist” is a standard classificatory term in typography, so no real grounds for satire there. Regards, ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: James Groves, Lizzie Houghton, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, and Johnny Unger.
|