issue 26

2 July 2007

*****************************************************

'Truth: lies open to all'

*****************************************************

Every fortnight.

All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] lancaster.ac.uk

Please download and print or delete as soon as possible after receipt. Back issues and subscription details can be found at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext. The editors welcome letters, comments, suggestions, and opinions from readers. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions.

For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/.

*****************************************************

CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, council report, the role of head of department, the transformation of personnel services?, professorial pay review, naming university buildings, competition, letters.

*****************************************************

EDITORIAL

The whole question of academic freedom has once again come into the spotlight. As Val Walshe, Director of Personnel Services, reported at the last meeting of Senate, moves are underway to propose new changes to the university's personnel policies. This will entail the removal of Statute 20 - the key statute that was inserted during the 1980s in response to the abolition of tenure in particular. Clearly, the abolition of tenure potentially had serious detrimental implications for academic freedom. This was an issue that appeared to be of little concern to the then government, and nothing was included in the original Higher Education Reform Bill that would specifically protect academic freedom. It was only thanks to the effective intervention of Roy Jenkins in the House of Lords that an amendment to the original bill was carried. This amendment, drawn up by Jenkins himself, declared that academics have 'the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions'. This was then incorporated into the Charters of all the pre-1992 universities, and at Lancaster it became the crucial Statute 20.

Clearly, therefore, the current move at Lancaster to revoke Statute 20 is a serious matter, concerning as it does a core academic value. This is at least recognised by the Personnel Office, as they have stated that in drawing up their proposed changes, they accept that 'the principle of academic freedom should be enshrined as a fundamental principle.' Clearly, the changes will have to be scrutinised very carefully in order to ensure that this is indeed the case.

But this also raises the very real question of the extent to which academic freedom has already been undermined. Also at the last meeting of Senate, the Vice-Chancellor reported on the 2007-08 HEFCE Grant Allocation, which, for Lancaster, will see an overall increase of 3.3%, which is somewhat higher than the 3% that had been expected. But the crucial point that was made here is that there has been 'a significant change in HEFCE's methodology for distributing QR funding to place a greater emphasis on supporting business and industry-related research.' The negative effects for Lancaster would have been significant, but for the fact that there was 'a special supplementary allocation that prevented any institution's QR grant falling in real terms for 2007-08.' But it was noted that this protection was temporary and would fall away in future settlements. The implication for Lancaster - and other universities - is clear: re-direct your research towards that which supports business and industry or else your research grant income will be cut. The implications for academic freedom hardly need spelling out.

So as personnel policies are revised, we must all be vigilant to ensure that academic freedoms are properly protected and enshrined in our charter, and it is right that we should be so. But we must at the same time ask some searching questions. Has the academic freedom we will all be so valiantly defending in principle already been significantly compromised in practice? And could this be the sort of thing Lord Judd was talking about when he said that universities need to be more vocal in defending their core values to the wider world? Something for us all to ponder as we embark on the summer vacation.

*****************************************************

NEWS IN BRIEF

The subtext collective

Readers please note our next issue will be published in early October. The collective is taking a short sabbatical break to pursue consultancies with QinetiQ and BAE Systems. We wish our readers an enjoyable and productive summer.

******

A birthday celebration

Last Monday saw the 5th birthday of the Staff Learning Centre. A very pleasant celebratory lunch was held for friends, staff and learners at the Centre. Jean Bennett opened proceedings with warm words of welcome and Professor Keith Percy gave out awards to a number of current learners. These included a special award to Peter Rainford, a member of the grounds staff. The Staff Learning Centre has achieved a great deal in a small space of time, often with limited resources, and has achieved national recognition for its encouragement of workplace learning and development, especially amongst support staff. It was developed initially through a partnership between the campus unions (assisted by the Trades Union Congress) and the University. subtext wishes to offer its congratulations and looks forward to its continued success.

******

Management School Constitution

This was discussed at the Faculty Plenary meeting held on 6th June. As previously mentioned in subtext (issue 22), proposed revisions had aroused considerable opposition amongst some members of the School. It was felt that if adopted they would have considerably strengthened the powers of the Dean and undermined existing democratic processes. A working group was established, chaired by Professor Lucas Introna, which after extensive consultation produced much-revised proposals. The document repays careful reading but subtext would especially commend its identification of and emphasis on shared values and foundational principles of governance (accountability, transparency, representation and enablement). What UMAG will make of it no one knows but it might make some of its members rather uncomfortable. It is pleasing to report there apparently was general agreement with the group's proposals, although some work remains to be done. The intention is to consult further before producing a final draft for approval at the first Faculty Plenary of the next academic year. We'll follow its progress with interest.

******

Estate management

It is rumoured that yet another internal restructuring is about to take place within this part of the Resources Division. The Director seems to have a preference for keeping his staff in a state of constant flux and uncertainty. Maybe it's simply the exuberance any Director might show at the news that seventeen (yes, that's correct, seventeen) net new posts apparently have been agreed for Estates. The figure it seems has already been announced within the section but has received less publicity elsewhere in the University. One wonders why. Still, it should certainly help reduce the amounts spent on consultants in this area of our administration.

*****************************************************

COUNCIL REPORT

The meeting rearranged at short notice for the 18th June proved to be uneventful. It began with the University Secretary reminding members of Council that their papers for meeting were for their use only, though she didn't explain why.

The Vice-Chancellor gave a presentation on progress measured against the Strategic Plan. The items acknowledged as needing most attention seem to be: improving college, social and sporting facilities; improving graduate employment; placing greater emphasis on postgraduate training; achieving greater volume and diversity in research funding, especially through collaborative work (including collaboration with businesses); improving management and decision-making processes and, finally, increasing our research and commercial exploitation activities. It's a long list with no surprises.

Andrew Neal, Director of Resources, presented a draft strategy for sports and recreation. This has been a long time in the making and was lengthy but not very specific. It came from a working group representing LUSU, the Sports Centre and the Estates Management, though only Andrew Neal spoke about it. He also reported on current finances and the capital budget for 2007-10. The ISS building project was treated as a distinct item.

The Senate Effectiveness Working Party and Senate's decision on it was reported to the meeting. The University Secretary this time remarked that the general invitation to comment had produced no comments, an entirely predictable outcome, especially at this time of year, but one can only wonder what conclusions lay members of Council might draw from this. Council also noted the decision of Senate on the setting up of a School of Health and Medicine. How this was unlike a conventional Medical School was briefly aired which, in turn raises the interesting question as to why this is such an important and urgent development if it isn't at all like a conventional Medical School. Unfortunately this wasn't pursued.

On the recommendation of the Nominations Committee, Bryan Gray was appointed as Pro-Chancellor for another five years. It seems that most members of Council had been contacted for their views on this - whether it was better to 'look at the field' or to accept Bryan Gray's offer to continue. The dominant but not unanimous view was that it would be better to stick with the present incumbent on the grounds that the benefits of continuity outweighed the possible benefits of change, an unsurprising if conservative view. One wonders whether it will be shared by the University Court when it next meets. It has the task of appointing Pro-Chancellors on the recommendation of Council.

*****************************************************

THE ROLE OF THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: CHANGING CONCEPTIONS

At the last meeting of Senate, Val Walshe, Director of Personnel Issues, presented a paper outlining some proposed changes to key employment policy areas. In the discussion that followed, it was said 'that care would be needed in defining the future role of academic heads of department in staff management and ensuring that they were given the appropriate training and support to carry this out' (Senate Minutes, 23rd May 2007). This raises very important questions about how HoDs perceive their role, how others perceive it and whether perceptions are changing. The reference to the role of HoDs in staff management is particularly telling and prompts some reflections that may well be timely.

The role of HoD has already evolved considerably. The post itself is very much a creation of the post-Oxbridge universities. When universities, such as Lancaster, were founded, their departments were usually comprised of one senior and established academic figure in the field - appointed to both Chair and HoDship simultaneously, together with a number of junior, new career lecturers. There was no doubt about departmental 'leadership' and the departmental chair often held the HoDship simultaneously. Compared to today, the duties were not onerous, and it was not thought particularly unusual or taxing for an individual to serve as HoD for twenty years or more. Indeed, the duties were often regarded as intellectually rewarding. The HoD was expected to provide academic leadership, develop the degree curriculum, make new appointments and set the intellectual agenda within the department. On the whole the junior lecturers were happy to acquiesce in the 'natural' leadership of the professor and things ran relatively smoothly.

Of course, problems could arise if a professor and head of department acted in a particularly high-handed way, causing resentment among his or her junior colleagues. Furthermore, as the 1960s turned into the 1970s, many academics began to feel that the dual chair-HoD arrangement was unduly hierarchical. Readers may recall David Craig's comment in a previous issue of subtext: 'By the early 70s, as a natural result of "the Sixties" with their belief in re-thinking social arrangements and freeing ourselves from cramping and time-dishonoured practices, we were proposing that staff meetings should be regular, with agendas; that headship of the department should be elective and rotating; that students should be represented on the departmental committee - all violent, heretical stuff, as you can see.' Before long, the demands of David Craig and others were met and HoDships did indeed become elective and rotating. The change was no doubt partly prompted as well by changes in the nature of the job. As the 1970s turned into the 1980s, the role became more bureaucratic and less intellectually rewarding; there were frequent complaints about increasing preoccupation with 'number crunching' and form-filling. Many of these pressures were induced by central government and the rise of the audit culture. It was becoming evident that twenty-year HoDships were unsustainable as well as undesirable, and that too long a stint as HoD would do serious damage to an academic's research career (and sometimes to an individual's health).

So although the impetus for change was augmented by these external pressures, it is also the case that the move to elective and rotating headships was primarily democratic in character. A hierarchical command model of headship was displaced by one where all members of the department could expect to take their turn, be elected by their peers and serve for a limited and specified period of time. (It is an interesting and somewhat ironic - given later developments - sideline to note that in the 1920s, the infant Labour Party operated on the same principle, electing and rotating the leadership in order to avoid the 'personality cult' temptation.) In effect, the new model saw the HoD as 'first among equals' or, as the American terminology has it, 'chair' rather than 'manager'.

It is interesting now to note all this, because the signs are that the pendulum is once again swinging in the other direction. If the noises coming from the personnel office are anything to go by, it seems that a more decisive shift from the 'chair' HoD to the 'manager' HoD is in the offing. Indeed, there are many members of staff who feel it has already occurred. These signs are sometimes subtle and at other times coated with a positive gloss. It is said that HoDs will need more professional 'training', and that they will need more institutional 'support'. Some would say that this is overdue and that HoDs have too often in the past had to carry heavy burdens with too little institutional support. But it has also to be recognised - as a number have observed - that the 'support' in question will inevitably enable a more heavy handed managerialism. The talk now is of the HoD's crucial role in 'staff management'. Staff are now resources to be 'managed' rather than colleagues to be 'chaired'. If this is so, then we appear to have travelled full circle, returning to the hierarchical top-down managerial headship that was jettisoned in favour of a democratic rotating and elective one. The implications of this are significant.

We must ask how sustainable it is to force a hierarchical managerial conception of the HoDship on the elective and rotating model. Is this not an unsustainable middle way formed by the forced amalgamation of two fundamentally incompatible models? It may be argued that if we really want manager HoDs, the path we should take, as some other institutions have done, is that of appointing external professional HoDs who are primarily administrators rather than academics. This would at least have the merit of being a consistent and sustainable model. Or, alternatively, we could put our efforts into strengthening and enhancing the elective and rotating model on democratic and co-operative principles. This is a very real choice with which we are now faced. What is really needed, therefore, is an informed and vigorous debate about what sort of HoD we as a university really want.

But as informed and vigorous debate is what is so sadly lacking from the public affairs of the contemporary university, we do not view that prospect with much optimism. What is much more likely to happen is a characteristic fudge, where the real issues of principle are obfuscated, and an intrinsically unsustainable solution triumphs by default. But if the inevitable does indeed happen, HoDs will increasingly be forced to fulfil managerial expectations within a co-operative model, meaning that the ultimate victims will be the HoDs themselves.

*****************************************************

THE TRANSFORMATION OF PERSONNEL SERVICES?

subtext readers may recall previous discussion of the People Strategy 2006 (see issue 16). A key aim of this is to create an employee relations strategy which ensures the university is compliant with legislation, can attract and retain high quality talent and supports the development of a culture defined by our beliefs and values. It now seems that the necessary programme of work has commenced. We can report that the basic building block of organizational change, namely the recruitment of new, additional staff, is being shaped. A large half page advertisement in People Management (http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/jobs/jobdetails.htm?ID=12121) grandly proclaims that 'Lancaster University is about to embark on a modernising agenda that will transform the role of the HR function, in line with its ambitious new people strategy. As a result they are seeking a number of commercially minded professionals with the determination and personal resilience to deliver change'. As is envisaged in the People Strategy these are individuals who will be employed to 'support, coach and influence managers in dealing with people management and development issues'. So far so good. But, ever inquisitive on our readers' behalf, subtext has sought to explore this development. In particular, we are curious how it is that this much-derided area of university administration should finally appear to be rising up the pecking order of resource allocation.

Following the publication and widespread consultation on the People Strategy – yes, you have been consulted! - a rather long UMAG minute of 7 May notes that there will now be an additional £60,000 for additional staffing in 2007-08, i.e. two more posts, and that a forthcoming process review regarding recruitment activities is still to take place. It seems that UMAG had commissioned a report reviewing people management across the University. It comes as no surprise that the detail of this report remains somewhat of a mystery, as is information on who outside the working party was consulted, or whether input external to the University was called on. We should like to think it was. In passing, one might note that the sum allocated by UMAG would not seem to be adequate for two senior professional posts at the advertised salary level but the circle may perhaps be squared through internal restructuring. Though yet to be finalized, subtext understands that Personnel Services is likely to have a name change to Human Resources (what else?) and have three strands to its activities: corporate matters (the day to day operational work), management and staff development and human resource business partners.

University Council was subsequently told that the Human Resources Committee had received an executive summary of the report and welcomed the addition of a strategic dimension to the activities of the HR Department. Quite what this means is anyone's guess but it seems to have been enough to secure the endorsement of the HR Committee, an achievement in itself. The UMAG minute also includes a telling if understated comment to the effect that 'a consultation process had revealed significant levels of unhappiness across the University with the support currently available over a range of personal [sic]-related areas.' Behind this, of course, lie many frustrating, time consuming experiences. There is no doubt that Personnel Services has experienced a large increase in its workload in recent years, including from the impact of employment legislation, and many of its staff have tried their best in difficult circumstances. However, it is no secret that what is needed is leadership, commitment and a sense of direction at the highest level. Arguably, these have been absent for many years. The area and its activities were neglected when part of the Resources Division and it has so far failed to develop since joining the Academic Division. One can only wonder whether simply stating that there will now be a 'strategic dimension' to its work will bring this about. For it to happen you need the right individuals in place, so our colleagues in the Management School tell us. The recent signs are not good, as the top-down launch of the People Strategy itself exemplifies. Many members of staff would simply settle for the basic personnel functions to be done in a timely and efficient way. The yet-to-be-recruited HR professionals will need to rapidly acquire an understanding of the culture(s) found within an academic enterprise if they are to succeed. subtext wishes them well.

*****************************************************

PROFESSORIAL PAY REVIEW: ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE

Andrew Sayer, Sociology

In the light of the university's annual review of professorial pay and the rumblings of discontent it has produced, colleagues may be interested in an attractive alternative used by the University of Wisconsin Sociology Department for determining its pay raises. This is a description of their system sent to me by a member of that department:

Every year we are told by the University Administration how much money is available for what we call 'merit pay' (most years there is an across-the-board component to raises and a merit component, this partition being determined by the University administration). The amount of merit pay available is calculated as a certain percentage of the total salary bill of the department. This amount, then, is to be distributed among the 40 or so faculty in the department.

At the beginning of the 'merit exercise' (as it is called), each faculty member prepares a 'five year report' listing publications, research grants, service activities, and any other relevant information. These are distributed to all tenured members of the faculty. The tenured faculty members are then given a spreadsheet which indicates the year-to-year salary history of each member of the department over the previous five years or so. Each tenured faculty member then reviews the five-year reports and distributes the total merit pool among all of the faculty (allocating zero to him or herself). These figures are then averaged, and this determines the merit pay of each faculty member. In effect one's colleagues vote on one's pay increase.

A few complications:

1. Because in American universities people get substantial pay raises in response to 'outside offers' from other universities (the market for faculty is like that of professional sports – the super stars play the market and getting universities involved in bidding wars) – and since many faculty refuse to play this game on ethical grounds, the distribution of salaries in a department often contains many inequities on standard meritocratic criteria. People often use the merit exercise as a way of redressing this problem. What this means is that sometimes a person with lots of publications and contributions may not get much of a merit raise if he or she has recently received an outside offer. (Note: these large outside offers which enable some professors to get salaries out of line with the salaries of colleagues do benefit the department as a whole, since these higher salaries mean that there is more merit pay available for everyone. There is thus a kind of maximin operating here – increases at the top make it easier to improve the situation of people at the bottom since there is more money available for raises.)

2. There is no standard rule at all about how individual faculty weigh the different components of 'merit', so some faculty place a lot of weight on good teaching or public service and others do not. There are also some egalitarians in the department who simply divide the merit pool equally among faculty, thus automatically giving higher percentage raises to lower paid faculty. The actual allocation of raises, therefore, is based on a weighted average of the different principles of different faculty, rather than based on a consensus of principles (although most people use conventional meritocratic criteria).

3. There are very strong norms against cliques, personal favouritism, vendettas, reciprocal deals, etc. I think these norms are quite strictly followed – the procedure is not corrupt.

4. Usually the chair of the department (an elected position for three-year terms) withholds about 10% of the merit pool for special considerations.

*****************************************************

NAMING UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS: HONOURING THE DECEASED

Members of the university will, on a day to day basis, come across rooms and buildings named after individuals: the Elizabeth Livingston Lecture Theatre, the Gordon Inkster Room, the John Creed building being just a few examples. While some such individuals (Marcus Merriman, for example) will have been known personally by many current staff and students, some are more obscure to contemporary minds ('who was Elizabeth Livingston?' is a question that has been overheard on the Spine). So in what follows, we give a brief account of how this process of naming buildings has evolved, and then enumerate some of the main buildings and rooms named after individuals, giving some brief information on these individuals themselves.

From its inception, the University showed a propensity to name its colleges, buildings and rooms after places rather than individuals. The colleges are the most obvious illustration of this, together with the individual residential buildings within the colleges themselves, all of which (with the exception of The County College and Graduate College) are named after towns, villages and regions within the North-Western locality. When the question of naming rooms and buildings after individuals was first raised, Charles Carter, the first Vice-Chancellor, decreed that this should only be done in honour of deceased individuals who had made an important contribution to the university and its life. He also established the policy that suggestions for the naming of buildings should be approved by Council. Some early examples of named rooms were the Sir Percy Stephenson Room in the old Lonsdale College (Stephenson was an early chairman of the Buildings Committee in the university's formative days) and the John Welch Room in University House (according to Gordon Inkster, writing in 1997, 'no one can remember who John Welch was'!).

Some time later, when Cartmel College was endowed with new en suite accommodation, it was decided to name the new residential block the 'John Creed Building' in memory of their distinguished former Principal. Later still, when Cartmel and Lonsdale re-located to new sites in the South-West of campus, a number of rooms and lecture theatres were left nameless, and so it was at this point that the opportunity was taken to honour and commemorate such university figures as Gordon Inkster, Marcus Merriman and Elizabeth Livingston. Most recently, the newly opened LEC III facility, which provides housing for the Department of Geography and LEC's Enterprise and Business Partnerships, has named one of its constituent parts the 'Gordon Manley Building' after the first Professor of Environmental Science. It is also planned to name the forthcoming new ISS building, near InfoLab 21, after Doug Shepherd, Professor of Computing and Director of Information Systems Services Policy, who died last year.

There is, however, a curious coda to this process. The County College has recently acquired a new residential block on the site of the old Cartmel College residences. A suggestion has apparently been made that this building be named after the former County College Principal, Ralph Gibson. This would appear to be an eminently appropriate suggestion, and seems parallel to the previous decision to name the new Cartmel block after John Creed. But for some reason, it seems to have got stuck. On being proposed at the Estates Committee back in February, and at a meeting of Council in April, the University Secretary noted that the whole process for naming rooms and buildings should be reviewed. Quite what is wrong with either this suggestion in particular or the process in general is unclear, particularly as the process seemed to operate smoothly for the various rooms around the new Bowland North Court. So we await further developments on that front. But in the meantime, here are some of the main commemorative rooms and buildings we currently possess. It does not pretend to be an exhaustive list, and we welcome further additions.

ALEXANDRA SQUARE & ALEXANDRA PARK - In these cases, exceptions appear to have been made to the 'deceased' requirement. It may well be said that our foundation Chancellor, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, deserves this special treatment. The Square at the centre of campus commemorates the start of her Chancellorship, while the Park in the South-West of Campus marks its end forty years later.

LAKE CARTER - not a building, but the only University feature to be named after the University's first Vice-Chancellor, Sir Charles Carter. This designation, at first informally made by students, became perpetuated.

JACK HYLTON MUSIC ROOMS - Hylton was not a University figure, but a well-known British band leader, born in Bolton. On his death in 1965, a tribute concert was held in London, 'The Stars Shine for Jack', the proceeds of which went towards the building of the Jack Hylton Music Rooms at the university, which was envisaged as being a centre for music making in Hylton's native North-West.

JOHN CREED BUILDING - 1990s residential block originally part of Cartmel College, but now part of The County College. Former Cartmel College Principal, Senior Lecturer in Classics, Provost of Colleges and composer of the university's Latin grace.

GORDON INKSTER ROOM - the former Cartmel College Senior Common Room, left without a name on Cartmel's re-location. Named after the legendary university figure Gordon Inkster, French scholar and editor of 'Inkytext' who died prematurely in 2001.

MARCUS MERRIMAN LECTURE THEATRE - one of the lecture theatres in the old Lonsdale College, now Bowland North. Named after foundation member of staff Marcus Merriman of the History department. Inspirational teacher and enormously popular with staff and students alike, he also played an important role in the wider development of the university. He died suddenly in 2006.

ELIZABETH LIVINGSTON LECTURE THEATRE - next door to the Marcus Merriman Lecture Theatre in what is now Bowland North. Named after the first Domestic Bursar of Bowland College, a formidable lady who set her stamp on her college. Because she was in residence herself in the early years, it is said that nothing moved without her personal knowledge.

AUSTIN WOOLRYCH SQUARE - the newly laid front Court of Bowland North has apparently been named after the foundation Professor of History and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Unfortunately, few, as yet, seem aware of this, and there is not yet any signage indicating this designation.

GORDON MANLEY BUILDING - as mentioned above, this is part of the new LEC III. Named after the foundation professor of Environmental Studies, who had previously been Professor of Geography at Bedford College, London. Described by one former student as a 'charming don of the old school'.

*****************************************************

SUBTEXT COMPETITION

To celebrate the end of the undergraduate year, subtext announces a new competition - 'Crufts at Lancaster, or Pets win Prizes'

Open to all, it requires just a little imagination. Imagine if the University's senior management group were entries for the Crufts Dog Show. Which breed of dog might best characterize the various individuals? Have you spotted a lap dog inhabiting D floor, or maybe an underdog, yet to be named? Who would be top dog or best in show - and what about Deputy Dawg? We offer a few thoughts to start the ball rolling. Is there a Rottweiler amongst them (it was remarked that there used to be), or possibly a Dandie Dinmont, prancing and preening itself? Can anyone spot a Poodle - or maybe two - sat around the table in the Vice Chancellor's meeting room? Of course, all might be seen as (very hard) working dogs, and so maybe there's a faithful Border Collie running around in ever decreasing circles, a Lurcher racing across Alexandra Square to get to a meeting, or a Springer Spaniel, with boundless energy, sniffing out those photo opportunities on and off campus. Hounds remain popular breeds and so maybe you see one of our senior managers as the elegant and aloof Afghan or the lugubrious Bloodhound? More exotic breeds might come to mind such as the Shih Tzu; the choice is yours.

All suggestions are welcome. Please e-mail them to the editors whose decision is final. The 'Winalot' prizes will be announced in the first issue of the new academic year and the best submissions printed, anonymously if preferred.

*****************************************************

LETTER

The Carleton

Dear subtext,

I can see why the Carleton occupies the status it does now, but am at a loss as to how it initially acquired it. Back in 1992, the Carleton was a treat at the start and end of term. The Students' Union used to arrange buses and tickets, and they were prized indeed, distributed by JCRs on the back of strong recommendations from 2nd and 3rd year students that it was a cracking night. I'd love to say I concurred, but to be frank, I can't quite remember. Then in 1994 (I think), a new deal was done with a nightspot in Chorley (memory is really fading now) which wasn't quite so successful.

Morecambe also featured with the Empire, further down the seafront, which was a regular Wednesday Night feature in the social calendar. I know it was gutted by fire around that time and the Carleton filled the vacuum, becoming a regular feature. Maybe that's where it started, and the pattern was set in stone there and then.

I've always wondered whether the Carleton nights being offered twice a term seemed somehow exotic at the time, featuring a trip to Morecambe when for most people at that time, Morecambe didn't feature in either the social or residential scene. Maybe other readers could enlighten us as to whether that was their attraction.

Dave Boyle

*****************************************************

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker.