| subtext | |
| Home
|
subtext | Truth: lies open to all Issue 157 - “by executive order” 02/02/2017 ***************************************************** 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, staff survey, weaponised PDR, court report, REF audit, PGR Space, CCTV, attendance tracking, Trump, public art, more public art, culture, shart attack, booze, more culture, obituary, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL The news that the University management is planning another ‘review’ of University Court (see Court Report below) should be the cause of some trepidation. Over recent years a number of reviews have been carried out on different aspects of how the University organises and governs itself, principally Court, Council and Senate. These bodies are all very different from each other but the outcomes of their reviews have all been remarkably similar – reduction and restriction of membership, reduction of democratic input, a decrease in accountability and an increase in the power of management. This is hardly surprising as the people who initiate, plan and lead these reviews are invariably senior managers themselves. The bizarre circumstances surrounding the timing of the recent Court meeting and the obvious attempts to restrict questioning and debate may well be indicators of what the University management has in mind for this body. Although it meets but once a year, it has in the past been a lively forum where University management has been challenged and strategy criticised by independent-minded members. It has also been a vehicle for students to provide an alternative view of the ‘student experience’ to the rosy-hued picture presented in University marketing. Echo-chamber has become a vague, and arguably overused term in the past few months, but its implication for these reviews is worth reflecting on. A liberal university that lays claim to inclusivity cannot operate in a field were members only listen to views that support their own. We would humbly suggest that any attempt to turn the democratic structures of the university – named for the virtues of judiciousness, deliberation and counsel – into senior management echo chambers will damage the function of the institution. At Court the VC stressed that the Lancaster was not inward looking: let us hope he carries the same attitude into this next review. ***************************************************** WHO SURVEYS THE SURVEYORS? No doubt there were trebles all round at University House this week as the staff survey results rolled in. “We have improved in the vast majority of areas”, the announcement jubilantly proclaimed, but that’s not all: “In fact, 49 out of 51 questions showed significant improvement gains between 2014 and 2016, of between 3 and 14 percentage points.” Even the most sceptical of subtext readers might be tempted to gloss over the concerns about what exactly is being measured, who is measuring it and profiting from this task, and the role these kinds of surveys play in legitimating whatever the management does (see subtexts passim) and be swept up in the enthusiasm about percentage point increases! No doubt it was a desire not to burden a now much happier workforce with unnecessary words in emails that caused the Director of HR to leave out the word “statistically” before “significant” in his announcement. Surely it couldn’t be because on the face of it, a 3 or 4% “improvement gain” (aren’t those synonyms?) isn’t necessarily particularly impressive? In fact, the report shows that only 10 of the 49 “improved” areas showed an improvement of 10 percentage points of more, and only 25 had improved by 5% or more - perhaps this could be rephrased as “a vast majority” in the next email? One of the areas singled out for particular mention is that “the University’s Senior Managers (UMAG) now listen and respond to the views of staff” more - but only 49% of staff felt this was the case! On top of that, only 15% of staff chose “strongly agree” in answer to this question, and 23% didn’t know. A considerable improvement on 2014’s 36% who agreed, to be sure, but arguably there is still a long way to go before this could be considered a ringing endorsement of UMAG’s attentiveness to the needs of rank-and-file staff. Meanwhile, the main area in which Lancaster has not improved, according to the email, is learning and development. Only 54% of staff have participated in *other* learning or development activities (the “other” here refers very broadly to activities outside formal training as identified in the PDR, and includes mentoring, secondment and external conferences), a 12% change from last year. And “only” 84% know how to access learning and development opportunities. Again, looking at just whether a change is statistically significant or not is almost meaningless without considering the overall figure (which is pretty good, considering many staff will not have roles where some of these additional development activities are relevant) and without considering the context - a reduction in the first figure could be as much to do with staff turnover, changes in departmental policies or any number of other factors, or with the very broad formulation of the question. It seems rather more worrying that, despite a 9% increase on 2014, only 47% of staff say that they have accessed training identified in their personal development plan as part of their performance and development review. Speaking of PDRs, it is also odd that no mention was made in the email of by far the biggest improvement - in the answer to the question “Did your PDR leave you feeling your work is valued?”, 21% more staff than in 2014 answered in the affirmative. No doubt an oversight, and nothing to do with the fact that there have been proposals to completely restructure the PDR process and make it more focussed on performance management, so a PDR that currently seems to work well would look a little, err... embarrassing. The initial report includes no detailed comments (apparently HR are trying to work out how to communicate the qualitative results - if only they knew of some world-leading qualitative researchers who might be able to help...). But there is a numerical summary of the subjects of comments relating to things that could be improved, and things that are already good about working for the University, respectively. The most popular themes in the former category include “Communication”, and “Pay & Benefits”. In the already good camp, some of the most frequent comments related to “Job Satisfaction” and “Relationships/Co-operation”. Strangely, the other two top categories of both positive and critical comments about the University related to “Feeling Valued/Supported” and “Facilities/Environment”. Perhaps this explains why less than half of Lancaster staff feel management are listening: is it because they only listen to people who say nice things about them? ***************************************************** BEHAVE YOURSELVES! Speaking of staff satisfaction, readers of the business press will no doubt be aware that Google has recently become the latest US corporation to abandon the ‘annual staff performance review’. After devoting a huge amount of time, energy and money over the years to this activity, Google has concluded that the whole exercise has been counter-productive. It was hated and feared by workers and managers alike. The overall aim was to increase staff productivity but the actual result was the opposite. In this, Google joins other major corporations such as Accenture, Adobe and General Electric in ditching this annual ordeal, which one Harvard business professor has compared with ‘undergoing root canal dentistry’. So it is perhaps somewhat surprising that there are still those in our own senior management who believe that this approach to staff performance would yield great benefits for Lancaster University. Over the years there have been several reviews carried out of Lancaster’s ‘staff appraisal’ and ‘performance management’ schemes. Each time this has happened there have been attempts by some senior managers to, in their words, ‘give it teeth’, ‘give it a sharper edge’ and ‘make it fit for purpose’. In other words, there had to be suffering involved somewhere. Despite this, the reviews invariably concluded that, on the whole, the system worked reasonably well and all that was needed was some tinkering with the process and for everyone to actually engage with it. The recent review (reported in subtext 153) seems to have been the most concerted attempt yet to weaponise PDR. In a world where, despite its size, Lancaster already outperforms many of its competitors, there were those who thought we would do even better if only we could put the frighteners on individuals through their annual reviews. For example, staff ‘Behaviours’ should be a new category in the list of things to be scrutinised and reported. Despite the trenchant opposition of the UCU nominee on the panel this was included in the final review report recommendations. However, continued opposition from UCU convinced at least some in senior management that such a radical change was unlikely to improve staff morale and performance so the more contentious recommendations were quietly dropped. The new scheme has yet to come out but subtext understands that no substantial changes to the current PDR are being proposed. And so it is likely to remain until the next new HR Director or Faculty Dean decides our approach is too namby-pamby and what we really need is something harder, sharper etc. etc. ... just like they have in industry, apparently. ***************************************************** COURT REPORT It's 28 January 2017. A wet Saturday. Campus is gearing up for some Applicant Visit Days, with Student Ambassadors dotted around ready to be welcoming. Over in the George Fox Building, something stirs. The 53rd annual meeting of the University Court, our annual showcase to external stakeholders, students and staff, is getting underway. Before the event, eagle-eyed Court members had noticed something odd. The Court has, for many years, opened with morning coffee at 10am, followed by the meeting itself at 10:30am, which would last for just over two hours, leading to a full lunch. This year's papers, however, quietly announced that members should arrive for morning coffee from 9:30am, for a meeting that would start at 10am, aiming to finish with "light refreshments" (i.e. more coffee) at 11am, after just one hour. Challenged on this by Lancaster UCU representatives, University Secretary Nicola Owen assured them that the Court would not be formally constrained to one hour, and the announced end time was just an approximate guide for members. The agenda items were the same as last year, though, so why do this? Consider the changes from the perspective of an external member of the Court. You may have a long way to travel. Your weekend time is precious. Previously, you could leave home at a reasonable time, arrive in Lancaster shortly after 10am, look forward to at least two hours of presentations and questions, round off with a decent lunch, and leave campus shortly after 2pm. Now, as announced, you'll need to get a much earlier train, when you get there you'll only be there for an hour, and afterwards the university isn't even going to feed you! Unsurprisingly, rumours were spreading. Was our senior management really committed to the Court? Could this be a deliberate strategy to make the meeting uneventful? We would see. Whatever the reasons, attendance was slightly down on last year, at just under 100. The most notable absences came from the student representatives - despite being permitted sixty members, fewer than ten were present. A consequence of the early start, perhaps? Well, sort of. It emerged later that the majority of student members had been told by a LUSU Vice President that the meeting would start at 10:30am, as that time was still advertised on the Secretariat website. Unbeknown to the members sitting in the meeting, several students duly arrived at 10:30am, only to be turned away by security, who refused to believe that they were members and not protesters. Ah yes, the protest. Well done to the four or five hardy souls who stood outside, quietly, as members arrived, holding cardboard placards condemning the university's recent decision to increase tuition fees. After the meeting, subtext was pleased to see that the Vice Chancellor went outside for a discussion with them. But let's get back to the meeting itself. The chair, Deputy Pro-Chancellor John Garside, gave apologies from the Chancellor and 69 other members, and confirmed the minutes, before announcing the first speaker of the day, Pro-Chancellor Lord Liddle. The Pro-Chancellor gave warm tributes to the Court itself: "I see this as the Annual General Meeting of the university"; to the late Lord Taylor of Blackburn, "I miss Tom's cheery hellos"; and to the Vice Chancellor, noting that the VC had recently become chair of the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association: "the HE sector is undergoing great change, and it needs someone with Mark's insight and vision." Lord Liddle noted the increasingly onerous regulations imposed on university councils, including the requirement that they should ensure degree classes were fair and of an objective standard - something he objected to, as this was surely a matter for the Senate, not the Council. He and Lord Judd had been sitting through the committee stages of the Higher Education Bill - "the legislative equivalent of waterboarding" - and wondered how we could avoid a repeat in England of the "Trump University" experience in America. Praising the Teaching Excellence Framework, he was "confident that Lancaster will win an Olympic gold in the TEF", adding as a (not entirely serious) aside that this might enable us to charge higher fees! Closing after twenty minutes, your correspondent got the feeling that the Pro-Chancellor had consciously decided to talk for as long as possible, to subtly draw attention to the infeasibility of a one-hour meeting. Next up was the LUSU President, Rhiannon Llystyn Jones, who opened with a cheerful "bore da". Ms Jones's speech was a little flat at first - she was not helped by having so few students in the room to cheer her on - but became more passionate as she went on, promising that LUSU would be there "every time tuition fees are raised, every time feedback is inadequate, every time we don't keep students properly informed, every time we prevent them carrying out extra-curricular activities, every time they cannot book a room, and every time we don't accept that they are different." Lancaster's students would be entering the employment market in a post-Brexit world that they didn't vote for, and "immigration is at the bottom of their list of concerns." Ms Jones then gave the best unintentionally funny response to a question. Asked by Cllr James Leyshon whether LUSU had done anything to promote democratic participation in the recent city council by-election on campus, where the turnout was a derisory 7.2%, Ms Jones replied that this idea had been submitted, via the Union's new democratic structures, but because of the amount of time these democratic structures take to work, it hadn't been possible to organise a meeting to discuss students' democratic participation until the day of the by-election itself, by which time it was too late. "I know 7.2% is terrible," she admitted. The Director of Finance, Sarah Randall-Paley, presented the University accounts, briefly (too briefly, some felt) summarising the University's financial position. Our surplus continues to rise and the indicators of financial heath remain good. The University has not been using loans to finance capital expenditure since 2012/13. Just one nomination had been received in the election of up to nine directly elected members of the Court - congratulations to Dr Elizabeth Roberts. Was this a sign that the vacancies were not advertised widely enough, or that membership of the Court is not as hotly-contested as it used to be? We moved on to the main event, at just before 10:45 am - the Vice Chancellor's report. The VC opened with a long and touching tribute to Lord Taylor of Blackburn, a "doyen of this university" and Deputy Pro-Chancellor for over 20 years. Just after getting appointed as VC, he'd received a phone call from Lord Taylor, with a simple message, "don't muck the place up!" Prof Smith proudly spoke of the new Beijing Jiaotong Lancaster University College, located in the coastal town of Weihai. The land was allocated, buildings already exist and subjects would be introduced sequentially. The first students had been admitted - 250 of them, against a target of 275. The aim was to increase this to five or six thousand by 2022. The Lancaster campus would also be growing, and the VC showed a map displaying the land around Bailrigg. Some had always been owned by the University, but there'd been significant purchases of land on both sides of the M6 since 2005, including a major acquisition in 2013. The University was very supportive of the Bailrigg Garden Village proposals. UK postgraduate taught student numbers were significantly up, because students can now get student loans to cover their costs, but overseas numbers were "a problem". Research funding from the government was now climbing again, and for the second year running, Lancaster had the second highest success rate for research council funding. The University was now in the top ten for all three UK league tables. The VC paid tribute to the university's staff - its "bedrock". The VC turned to Brexit. This had caused many people, especially staff from an EU background, to "question their place in British society", and the University was pushing the government to guarantee their rights. Student recruitment from the EU would be affected. Lancaster currently received the largest amount of European Development Fund money, in absolute terms, of any university in the UK. The Higher Education and Research Bill, currently going through the Lords, was founded on a core politicised belief: there should be more competition in the market. The proposed Office for Students, which would replace HEFCE, could be a major change if, as seems likely, we're required to be regulated heavily. All research funding would move from HEFCE to the new UK Research and Innovation body, meaning that core funding would be split across government departments (Education and Business - not as yet the same department). Would Lancaster be rated gold, silver or bronze in the TEF? This was "in the lap of our peer review friends" and we'd find out in May or June. UK immigration policy and its likely effect on student numbers was a worry. Australian universities were "mercilessly" pointing out how unfriendly the UK was to overseas students. The Prime Minister's recent statement had been ambiguous on whether students would be removed from immigration number controls. The VC closed by promoting the university's strategy document, which was currently being "refreshed". It was "a crucial compass for our staff, in particular those in leadership roles". The time was just after 11:10am, so how long would be allowed for questions? In an innovation, the chair announced that two questions had been submitted in advance. The first, on the financial value the University contributes to Lancaster, gave the VC the chance to bring up a pre-prepared slide, while the second asked if the University remembered that it was principally an educational establishment, to which the answer was "yes". Questions then came thick and fast. Lord Judd asked if the VC shared his passion for academic freedom, which was, he thought, why British universities have such an outstanding reputation in the world. The VC agreed, saying that he was always arguing for higher levels of autonomy, although he often got the reply that "you would say that, wouldn't you?". Prof Stanley Henig asked about the Prime Minister's recent commitment to "Global Britain" - he'd not noticed much enthusiasm for closer relations with other countries, more of a feeling that we're better off looking after ourselves. The VC stressed that Lancaster was certainly not inward-looking, mentioning in particular our new joint venture in China and that, of the 45 most research-intensive universities, Lancaster was the 3rd highest in absolute terms when it came to teaching students overseas. Do our new Chinese landlords share our commitment to academic freedom, wondered your correspondent - but this issue was not addressed. The VC's spikiest response came to a question from Cllr Sam Armstrong on CCTV in Lancaster, which was due to end in September 2017 because of cuts and the need to upgrade the system (see below). Would the University be willing to meet with the city council to discuss part-funding the service? The VC would be pleased to meet, he said, but the government should be funding this, not the University. This was all part of a creeping process, where the government was squeezing the NHS and local councils of funds, and the VC had a profound admiration for the struggle that the NHS and local councils were going through. And then, suddenly... the chair announced he'd take just one more question, despite more than one hand being raised. The chosen questioner asked about the need for more diversity, which gave the VC - who may or may not have had an inkling that this question might be coming - a chance to make an announcement. He believed in being honest with people. The University hadn't yet conducted an effectiveness review of the Court (not entirely true, as one took place in 2007-8) and over the next year they planned to do just that. "Concrete proposals" would be made to the Court's next meeting. With that announcement ringing in members' ears, the chair rapidly ended the meeting. It was 11:40am and, had further questions been permitted, the meeting would probably have continued for a further 20 minutes. But such was the speed at which the chair acted to close proceedings, your correspondent wonders if he had a train to catch, or if he'd left the oven on? And so the Court ended for another year, as members joined the queue for lunch, sorry... light refreshments. ***************************************************** GET YOUR REF HEALTH-CHECK HERE! "Research assessment is expanding to meet the expanding needs of research assessment", Oscar Wilde might have said. A mere four years before the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) is scheduled to take place, and with vital details of the exercise still to be clarified, academic staff in many departments were asked before Christmas to nominate up to six publications for possible submission in 2020. Departmental approaches to reviewing outputs seem to range from brief conversations in corridors to gruelling team scoring sessions. The "REF Health Check" or "research audit", which is to be conducted every year, was devised in Research PVC Steven Decent's office and formalized in a paper which was passed at November's Senate meeting. Some sceptical members of staff have questioned the value of conducting such an onerous exercise so early in the REF cycle. The absence of convincing answers may even have induced some unreasonable types to doubt the motives behind the research audit. Lancaster UCU members were informed in early January that the branch Executive had asked to meet with senior management to discuss their concerns. While the details of the concerns haven't yet been specified, it isn't too hard to guess what might have been on the agenda. Is the REF serving here as a vehicle for increasing managerialism? Is D-floor sensitive to the possibility that this process might harm staff morale, not to mention encouraging short-term research planning which is unlikely to produce the best REF submissions? Nationally, UCU has highlighted that proposed changes to the REF could lead to the proliferation of teaching-only contracts. While Lancaster University has previously committed itself to minimising the use of such contracts, a rush by our competitors to make systematic use of them could induce a change of heart. If the University were to renew this commitment to research-led teaching then that might go some way to allaying fears about the purpose of the research audit. ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT Postgraduate research students enjoy a variety of carefully crafted study spaces on campus that the University is proud to let them call their own. These can vary from a TARDIS style single-occupancy office which manages to hold three - sometimes four - people, to a glorious open space that ensures all occupants can hear the whispered conversation about haemorrhoids taking place four desks away. In an effort to standardise the approach to space allocation across faculties, Facilities have been tasked with surveying the usage of said space. PGR students should not, therefore, be overly alarmed if they find a clipboard toting undergraduate creeping into their study hovel counting heads at odd hours of the day. At least, that is the party line. Space is tight. Disturbance is peace. Some of the PGRs who have already been subject to the survey were comforted by not having the burden of prior warning from their department or uni house. But it is not like they might have had anything important to be doing in their office space, like interviewing research participants or consoling undergraduates after their Christmas assignments. “Please come in, make yourselves welcome, I am ready to stand up and be counted”. So far there appears to be no suggestion, as far as the subtext collective is aware, that anyone is going to ask the PGR students themselves what their opinion is. If this is the case then it may well be that Facilities are terrified of the vat of writhing annelids such a survey might open. Much easier to open a door, count heads, close it again and run away. Nice, easy data to analyse, lots of pretty graphs of time versus desk usage and, hey presto, we need less space than we thought. Or disguise what you are doing by carrying out a supposed survey of PGR needs, as has apparently happened in LUMS. Any good researcher will know that the method used in collecting data is key to a favourable outcome, so we can only hope that PGR students will be asked for their opinion. Any exercise conducted purely on the basis of which unfortunate souls are present in a PGR study space at 8 o'clock in the evening - as happened in History - may well be counting those who have lost their house keys, their sense of direction or even just the will to live. If our study spaces are empty then might it just possibly be because many are not fit for purpose and the PGR students are all in the bar drowning their sorrows? However, there may be an opportunity here. If PGR students were to work a formal shift rota, hot-desking in booths constructed in an open plan racking structure that allows eight desks to be piled onto the footprint of one normal desk, then it just might be possible for the University to accommodate ALL PGR students in a fraction of the current space allocation in, for example, a Research Academy that could also centralise a whole host of other functions. Of course, were this to be envisaged then undoubtedly the first to be consulted will be the PGRs themselves... oh wait... ***************************************************** BIG BROTHER IS NOT WATCHING YOU... Readers may be aware of the financial pressure that our local city council is under as a result of the latest round of budget cuts by the government. The city council budget planning documents or, more specifically, the planned cuts to services, make fairly grim reading. Amongst the planned cuts is the termination of the CCTV coverage of Lancaster city centre. The CCTV equipment currently in use is ageing and the council have reached out to local organisations (including, subtext understands, the University) for support in the continuation of the service. That support has apparently not been forthcoming as the cameras are due to be switched off in April of this year. subtext wonders how this plays out in terms of the University’s claim that Lancaster is a safe place to live and study, but given the city’s reliance on its universities as a main driver of the local economy, we can’t help but also wonder at the short-sightedness of the council. Safety is an issue that is ranked highly amongst potential students, particularly those applying from overseas. It cannot be argued that the safety of the town centre will be maintained without the 21 cameras currently located in public spaces, despite the council’s assertion that coverage of private premises and ad-hoc use of mobile devices at events has made city CCTV less important. The city council’s budget also makes reference to further cuts in a number of services, including financial support for the Arts, homelessness prevention and the promise of a review into ‘the future of Lancaster’s museums’. Add to that a recent survey conducted by the Police and Crime Commissioner into the additional Council Tax contributions that residents in the Lancaster area would be willing to make in order to maintain police services (that service is also under threat), the general cuts to the health service, and an alarming picture begins to emerge. The University is able to presents itself to prospective students as a safe place set in a vibrant city. If arts funding, event funding, funding for museums, CCTV and the local police force and NHS are all under threat, not to mention the future of the Sugarhouse also looking shaky, it may not be able to do so for very long. Far be it for subtext to suggest that the city council – and indeed national government – should be thinking about the impact of these cuts with a more long-term vision than simply lines in a budget proposal. But it does seem strange to start asking non-state, or loosely-state organisations like the University to cough up for public services. ***************************************************** ...OR IS HE? Picture this: A normal ‘run-of-the-mill’ teaching session on a quiet Wednesday morning in Week 12 with a group of excited students. This particular group of students are *not* taking part in the pilot run of the new attendance check-in via the iLancaster mobile app, which is being used on a number of courses and modules. The lecturer is aware that this new wizzo iBeacon technology is being used to collect attendance data but has been informed that his department is not part of this scheme at the moment and none of his modules will be subject to the iLancaster attendance check-in. Even before he is able to utter his very first words of wisdom there comes a strangulated cry from the back of the room. “Ian, (very familiar this particular group of students) why is my phone telling me it knows where I am?!” The lecturer offers some warm words along the lines of “well, it shouldn’t be, our Department is not part of the new attendance scheme”. The offending phone is held aloft. “What new attendance scheme? Why is my phone telling me it knows where I am?” Jokes about ‘Big Brother’ are not well received. The chorus of indignation is taken up as her fellow students take their phones out of bags and pockets and quickly check if they are being monitored. Order is restored with some advice as to whom the students should complain, but disgruntlement persists. ***************************************************** LANCASTER RISES Readers may be shocked to realise that the last subtext (issue 156) was still an Obama era subtext. That’s right folks, it has been less than a fortnight since Donald J. Trump took up the role of defender of the free world – a title that was always debatable at best, and now has become down right satirical. Still, as Hollywood is fond of reminding us: there is always hope, and Trump is a massive prat. Hope sprung the day after The Donald’s inauguration. On Saturday 20 January, over 4 million people worldwide donned pink pussycat hats, and said ‘this is not who we are’ as part of a global, women-led march. And Lancaster made a very good show of joining them. In Dalton Square, under the shadow of Queen Vic – who DJT would probably tried to have a go on, let’s be honest – 400 Lancastrians gathered, banners at-the-ready. The Women’s March was indeed a women-majority affair, but men were welcome and made a good show of solidarity. Men of quality support equality, men who don’t are welcome to Piers Morgan’s proposed Men’s March (date TBC). Naysayers will point out that 400 people singing ‘We Shall Overcome’ in the middle of a wet town in North West England is probably not going to stop Trump, or the nasty ideologies he has come to embody. But these 400 were not what might be affectionately termed, ‘the usual suspects’, of which Lancaster has a few. They were mums with young daughters, dads with sons, sons with mums, and dads with daughters: with plenty of finger-painted placards declaring such controversial sentiments as ‘girls are good, don’t be mean Mr President’. Sixth formers, already angry that they were being yanked out of the EU without their consent, and now angry at a Yank whose attitude to consent makes you go ‘ew’. Overhearing different conversations, for a lot of the people gathered in Dalton Square, it was their first voyage into political activism. It will hopefully not be their last. For those keen for a physical outlet to their Trump tremors – especially given the President’s fast-and-loose attitude to scientific evidence and facts - the Students’ Union is organising a Stand Up the Trump demonstration on Friday 10 Feb, 12pm in Alexandra Square. When the US sneezes, the world catches a cold. When the US elects a narcissistic psychopath, Lancaster says ‘jog on, mate’. ***************************************************** WHAT’S A HEPWORTH WORTH? As the Design the Spine project is soon to make its presence felt in Alexandra Square, the future of the Barbara Hepworth ‘Dual Form’ sculpture is raised once again. The artwork, one of a group of seven identical bronzes cast by Hepworth in 1965, was acquired by Lancaster in 1969, not without some controversy, with the usual sneers about toilet seats, modern art and the cost. The then students’ union even passed a resolution condemning the purchase, declaring that the money would be better spent on students. It seems that even in those heady revolutionary days, students were just as capable of po-faced piety as some of them are today. (For those interested in this way of valuing art, a similar Hepworth outdoor sculpture went for over £3.5m at Christie’s last year). It was installed on the green in front of the Great Hall and there it stood until the refurbishment of Alex Square four years ago, when it was removed to its current location in the north-west corner in front of University House. It seems that someone in Facilities had decided that the sculpture, set in a rockery and surrounded by tasteful planting, would make a very nice decoration in the new-look square, and would be a good replacement for the glacial erratic that used to live there (see subtexts 27 and 41). Needless to say, there was no consultation with the University community about this. There was, however, some opposition and the matter was raised in the Public Arts Strategy Committee, which has oversight of the public arts on behalf of Senate. It was pointed out that a sculpture like Dual Form needed to be placed in an open position so that it can be viewed from any aspect through 360 degrees, at different times and in different weather conditions. If Facilities wanted a garden feature there were plenty to be had at the local B&Q sale. Objections were noted, and duly ignored. So there it has stood, unseen and unloved, gradually disappearing beneath the jungle-like foliage so beloved of Facilities. There was a suggestion that it could be moved again as part of Design the Spine, maybe even back to its original location, but the flashy ‘reimagining’ video on the Facilities website gives no indication of this, so best not to hold your breath. Still, at least the question is now being asked again. So how have the other six copies of Dual Form fared? One is in the Hepworth sculpture park in her native Wakefield, one stood for many years outside the Guildhall in St. Ives and is now in the Hepworth Sculpture Garden in that beautiful town, there’s one in Holland in the magnificent Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller sculpture park, the two in the US are, respectively, in the outdoor section of the The Phillips Collection, Washington D.C, and in a gallery all of its own in the Portland Art Museum, Oregon. The final cast was bought by the Leeds City Art Gallery and is now on extended loan to Leeds University, where it has pride of place on the university’s Sculpture Trail. What is common to all these locations is that the artwork has been treated with respect and is displayed in a manner that reflects the intentions of the artist (though Portland should really display theirs outdoors). Compare and contrast with the way that Lancaster University has treated this sculpture, indeed, with the way it treats all its sculptures. What our Chancellor, a Trustee of the Yorkshire Sculpture Park (which contains many examples of Hepworth’s work) makes of this sad tale is anyone’s guess. Given the extent to which our own Hepworth has been concealed, he may not even be aware that we have one. ***************************************************** RAVAGES OF TIME Another piece of campus public art likely to be affected by Design the Spine is the ‘Making Time’ garden, situated in the hollow in front of the Peter Scott Gallery. The garden was a piece of performance art by the artists Elizabeth Willow and Jonathan Raisin illustrating the passage of time, and it was intended to last just one year. The centrepiece was a large garden shed which had been rescued from a tip. However, it proved to be so popular with students and staff, some of whom tended the garden and added their own touches throughout the year, that it was decided to leave it as it was and see what time would do to it. That was 7 years ago, and the effects of time are all too evident, though the site remains remarkably unvandalised. But that space is now in the sights of the Design the Spine juggernaut and clearly there is no room in its ‘vision’ for a wild garden and a gently decaying shed. As with the trees and the green area outside the Great Hall (see subtext 155) we are likely to come in one Monday morning and find that the whole installation has been removed. This would be a very sad end to what was one of the most popular and community-engaging arts event ever mounted on campus. So here’s a modest suggestion from subtext for a more creative and celebratory demise. We may not be able to save the mature trees but at least we can ensure the shed gets a dignified departure. Let’s give it a Viking funeral, perhaps with a ceremonial immolation beside Lake Carter at sundown. It could be the high point of a summer community arts event, something we haven’t provided in years. We could call it The Burning Shed Festival. ***************************************************** BISH BASH BOSCH At the 6.30 p.m. on Sunday 22 January the Dukes screened ‘The Curious World of Hieronymous Bosch. Tickets were £1.50 more than for any other screening at the Dukes. Directed by David Bickerstaff ‘The Curious World of Hieronymous Bosch’ is a 90 minute documentary about the Dutch artist and the exhibition of his work put on in his home town. The exhibition ‘Jheronimus Bosch - Visions of Genius’ at Het Noordbrabants Museum in the southern Netherlands, brought the majority of Bosch’s paintings and drawings together for the first time to his home town of Den Bosch. In the most comprehensive collection of his work ever mounted, the tiny Noordbrabants museum managed to secure 17 of Bosch’s 24 extant paintings and 19 of his 20 drawings. With nothing to offer other museums in exchange for the loans, they instead paid them back by doing analysis of the works. The camera lingers on Bosch’s intricate depictions of animals, monsters and religious scenes, while talking heads such as Peter Greenaway put them in context and explain how the exhibition came to be. Nothing remarkable about this you may observe. Except that the Dukes was packed, apart from a couple of rows at the front every seat had a paying (more than normal) customer. As was explained to your correspondent as he left the theatre: “That Bosch, he’s very popular in these parts”. ***************************************************** SHART ATTACK To: Nonnie Tudur, President, LuVE-U Students' Charitable Membership Organisation (LUSCMO) Thank you for your email. Right now I am out of the office on very important business and am definitely not sick. If you have an emergency please call Security 01524 594541 and tell them you are about to call 999. MMS. *** To: Mike M. Shart, VC, Lune Valley Enterprise University (LuVE-U) Why did your auto-reply come two hours after I sent my email? :S ***************************************************** PUB REVIEW: THE BOOT AND SHOE, A REGULAR’S PERSPECTIVE - CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE The refurbishment of the Boot and Shoe is nothing less than a triumph. The building that’s been at the heart of Scotforth for over 100 years needed a massive injection of funds following the lack of investment by the previous owners. Thwaites Brewery has managed to breathe new life into the building with the addition of a huge conservatory to cater to the increasing number of ‘strangers’ coming into the pub for meals. Its short life so far has not been without issue. Reports have come in of food running out and waits of over an hour. The initial strain of getting used to this additional throng of people has led to some quality problems, but this contributor has eaten here five times since it opened and has been delighted with the quality every time, even if the Pie of the Day is not a real pie. The pizzas are fantastic, and though the menu appears a little unadventurous, ‘specials’ are being introduced to offer the repeat diner a different experience. So what about the drinker in this set up? There seems to have been a bias in favour of the food operation and a general push to get the ‘usual’ clientele to the back of the pub. It is to be hoped that this will relax over the coming weeks, when the pub settles down and the regulars start to claim more of the pub back, restoring the proper balance. The live sport continues with more screens dotted around the old section, although the commentary could be allowed to climb a couple of decibels. Live music events have started at weekends in the light and airy new conservatory, and not forgetting to mention the quiz on a Thursday night which is still as popular an event as ever. Trying to please all is impossible, but there are perhaps a couple of things that could have done differently. The regulars bar is a tad low and uncomfortable to lean against, though nothing a few more appropriately sized bar stools will rectify that problem for most. Vitally though, the Boot can cater for the Disabled, Ladies need not go need to go upstairs and the Gents can use the facilities without freezing to the spot. Now we just need the commentary to be right for the Six Nations Coverage and all will be perfect. ***************************************************** CONCERT REVIEW: GREAT MUSIC FROM THE JAWS OF DISASTER - CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE BY MARTIN WIDDEN Sometimes, when we are faced with what appears to be certain disaster, an opportunity comes along to turn it into a triumph. This doesn’t happen very often. Should we be faced with two disasters, one on top of the other, success is even rarer. But the Great Hall concert on 28 January benefited from two pieces of great good fortune which did indeed turn threatened disaster into triumph. The soloist was to be Willard White, the Jamaican bass-baritone who among his many roles has made his mark as Porgy in the Gershwin opera Porgy and Bess - but he had to pull out with only a few weeks to go before the concert. Fortunately, the violinist Nicola Benedetti was available on this particular Saturday, en route from London to Scotland with her partner the cellist Leonard Elschenbroich. So it was arranged that they should stop off in Lancaster and give a piano trio concert. The news that this star group had been hired spread far and wide, and the Great Hall was quickly sold out. The trio’s regular pianist Alexei Grynyuk was the third member of the group; but then, another potential disaster, he was indisposed and unable to play. Somehow the pianist Wu Qian was hired. Like Benedetti and Elschenbroich, this young Chinese pianist has been making a big impression in European concert halls. Despite joining the others at what must have been short notice, and for a demanding programme for the pianist, she was most sensitive to the other two players. So these three made up the piano trio we heard in the Great Hall; and they gave superb performances in a fascinating and varied programme. The concert closed with the first piano trio of Johannes Brahms. Composed in 1854 when he was only 21, this trio is a demanding piece for all three players but especially for the piano, Brahms’ own instrument. As with much of his early output, the original trio could be seen as patriotically romantic, and rather heavily scored. Brahms later (aged 56) revised the piece radically, shortening it by about one third of its length, although it remains a long piece even so. This shorter version is now almost universally preferred, as it was in the Great Hall on 28 January. The performance was reflective, sensitive and very well integrated among the three players. Between these two major pieces, two shorter modern works were performed: five Duetti d’Amore, composed by Mark-Anthony Turnage specially for Benedetti and Elschenbroich, and the trio Butterflies Remember a Mountain, by the American composer Arlene Sierra. This completed a well-balanced and very satisfying programme which was brilliantly performed. It made a great start to the second half of the Great Hall season of concerts. ***************************************************** TONY EVANS: AN APPRECIATION Tony Evans, who died in Preston on 28 December, will be fondly remembered not only as an effective Head of Security but also as someone who contributed greatly to the wider university community. He had a deep understanding and appreciation of what really made the university work – the loyalty, commitment and collegiality of its staff and students – and this influenced his approach to security matters. To those who did not know him he could sometimes appear a forbidding character, this former police inspector striding through campus with grim visage and dark sunglasses, but beneath he was a very affable character with a great sense of fun. He was a stalwart supporter of the colleges and was for many years the Vice-Principal and Senior Tutor of Furness College. He once spoke of how much he always looked forward to Intro Week, observing that there was nothing to compare to the rush he got from “that great wave of energy and optimism that engulfs the campus on arrivals weekend”. He was also a strong trade unionist and an active member of AUT/UCU, and while he was always scrupulous in carrying out his duties as Head of Security, he never allowed his department to be used to undermine the effectiveness of lawful industrial action. He was not afraid to speak truth to power, and had his advice been heeded the University, and its then Vice-Chancellor, would have avoided the serious reputational damage they suffered as a result of the George Fox Six affair in 2005. The subtext collective extends its condolences to Tony’s family and friends. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear subtext, In subtext 156 you wrote “Our students - who make up over 3600 of the ward electorate - can't claim that they never realised they were registered, because all of them will have explicitly elected to place themselves on the electoral roll when they registered for their course this year...” Well maybe they should have realised that they were registered, but I wonder if the financial implications were explained to them? If they are on the electoral roll in Lancaster then it may affect their ability to apply for credit. As 18 is the earliest that they can get credit – even an overdraft on their current account – this will often coincide with arrival at University. Both banks and parents will probably encourage them to use their home address in their application which has advantages when credit checks are carried out – they will have been resident there longer and it is less likely that someone at that address will have had a bad credit record. However, it appears that credit companies check whether the application address is consistent with the address on the electoral register. If they use their home address they risk being rejected without knowing why. If this happens more than once they could end up on a credit blacklist. If they do use their student address then the brand new credit card may be delivered to a shared house with people they hardly know. Regards ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists of (in alphabetical order): Paul Arthur, James Groves, Lizzie Houghton, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, and Johnny Unger.
|