| subtext | |
|
|
subtext issue 111 14 November 2013 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight during term-time. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk. Please 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. subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but is willing to consider without obligation requests for publication with the name withheld. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/. If you're viewing this using Outlook, the formatting might look better if you click on the message at the top saying 'Extra line breaks in this message were removed', and select 'Restore line breaks'. CONTENTS: editorial, news in brief, picket report, colleges revisited, hr retention, concert reviews, links, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Imagine for a moment that the current industrial action achieves everything it's officially after (an above-inflation pay offer, national bargaining on other issues). Will everything then be fine in Lancaster and in UK universities? Perhaps yes: UK universities have more revenue coming in than for a long time, thanks to the increased cap on tuition fees; the global market for university-level education is booming or about to boom, both on new physical campuses in rising economies and online; the reorientation of universities towards undergraduate customers, and their new demands, could mean a closer focus on excellent teaching. Lancaster in particular – small, flexible, well-regarded but still with room to improve - is in a good position to take advantage of all this, after a slight correction in compensation and conditions brings staff back onboard. Some of us aren't so sanguine (indeed, some of us find that the business-speak in that last paragraph makes our teeth itch). What's at stake for UK universities, right now, is what kind of institution we're going to be. One possibility is that we could continue to become more corporation-like: more bureaucratic and hierarchical, more focussed on delivering services to customers, more divided between those who manage and those who are managed, more liable to use staff as replaceable resources. That possibility is well-mapped, and shown for the disaster it is, by the experience of US universities over the last 20 years. The other possibilities aren't so clear, and won't be described - let alone achieved - in one burst of union action, however successful or unsuccessful it turns out to be. But we do have a model we could develop, an institutional form a lot older than the corporation: the historical university, a self-governing community of scholars and students dedicated to learning. This model doesn't require us not to care about making money to pay staff - most of us don't have independent incomes - but it does conceive of our activity, and the proper organisational form for that activity, as something other than commercial. We at subtext don't claim to have a perfected plan, but we are not sure that everything's fine in the corporate university - even one with better-paid staff. ***************************************************** NEWS IN BRIEF Professor Derek Sayer of the History Department recently appealed against being included in the upcoming REF, on the grounds that the decision to include him (like the decisions made to include or exclude his colleagues in History) failed to meet HEFCE's and the University's procedural requirements of transparency, accountability, and consistency (see further http://tinyurl.com/ntp8d8q). Prof Sayer's blog now reports that the appeal has been rejected, and that he has been told that the reasons for rejection are too confidential for him to share them. subtext would be interested in hearing of any other appeals - whether against inclusion, or more conventionally against exclusion. ******* Industrial action continues: union members are working to contract and planning a further strike on the 3rd of December. The employers are reported as being 'willing to hold discussions to try to resolve the dispute', which is more than they were a few weeks ago. ***************************************************** PICKET REPORT Our industrial correspondent reports from the picket line: For the first time that anyone could remember all the campus unions (UCU, UNITE and Unison) took industrial action. It was certainly the first time that all the unions had engaged in collective strike action – an offshoot of which was a sharp increase in union membership, both nationally and at Lancaster. It was a civilised and well-mannered affair and from a union perspective the picket line was a very well attended action. Banners, flags, placards and a considerable number of activists greeted people as they approached the sports centre. The more imaginatively 'hand-made' placards carried slogans such as 'Mark £ Smith stole my milk money' and 'Cole not Dole' and 'It is as if Welly was still here'. Only at a University picket line could messages of solidarity be delivered from the Trampoline Club - although support across the entire student body was more up and down. Those students who did join the picket line (and there were quite a few) provided noise and colour. Most drivers approaching the line (more of a dog-leg squiggle) took the proffered leaflets and a number of buses stopped to allow leaflets to be distributed to passengers. Tea and coffee were supplied by very kind people from the Chaplaincy Centre – it was a very cold day – and the atmosphere was one of comradeship tinged with the feeling that sadly this was the just the start of a more protracted affair. Oddly this was the first time in your correspondent's experience that a picket line had only one Socialist Worker paper seller and no police presence. At the end of the day all the debris and picket line paraphernalia was carefully tidied away – as I said a very well-mannered and civilised affair which for those taking part was an enjoyable and affirming experience. ***************************************************** COLLEGES REVISITED Following the article published in our last issue, subtext has learned of further reasons for disquiet regarding the treatment of our invaluable colleges. We argued that the derisory proportion of university income allotted to the colleges betrayed a marked tendency to take the system for granted, and to rely almost exclusively on goodwill and voluntary effort. These resources are not inexhaustible, and are likely to run short if those involved in running the colleges are subjected to decisions which sap their morale. Apart from the issue of funding, colleges have recently seen their representation on Senate reduced. Naturally the colleges have also been targeted by the ongoing mania for centralisation, and officers have found their ability to take autonomous decisions undermined by vexatious bureaucratic interference even in trivial matters. Now subtext learns that their room for manoeuvre is also being squeezed in a very physical sense. Since 2008, the colleges have lost several hundred square metres of space allocated for social and administrative purposes; County, Bowland and Furness have been hit particularly badly in this respect. Perhaps subtext subscribers can provide other evidence of a similar nature. As we suggested in issue 110, it would be a mistake for managers to regard the colleges as expendable and its officers as simple-minded folk who will continue to serve the university despite being punished for their pains. If, in fact, there is no deliberate vendetta against the colleges and decision-makers really do regard them as significant assets for our university, it is surely time to reverse the prevailing trend and start following up the occasional warm words with practical measures to support them. ***************************************************** HR RETENTION Human resources would appear to have a retention problem: Lancaster's Head of HR Andy Clark is reported to be leaving the university before the end of the year. To lose one Head so quickly after the departure (albeit in very different circumstances) of his predecessor may indicate that something is sadly wrong - unless frequent moves are just normal for HR professionals. Sources have told subtext that the fundamental problem is that HR managers from outside the sector 'don't get it'. University staff (particularly academics) do not do as they are told, act at times in ways that are not in their best interests, and mock any attempts to make them 'behave'. We understand that one thing that is particularly difficult to grasp is the concept of the role of Academic Heads of Department as something that changes – one week s/he has a lot of power (something that the Centre wants to increase) and the next ... Heads of Department get this and they (the good ones) operate with it in mind. One moral to draw is that universities are not like businesses, but operate on an older and very different model. Techniques and tools which work well for one, then, might not for the other, and the persistent attempt to screw in nails with a hammer is likely to cause frustration... ***************************************************** CONCERT REVIEWS GREAT HALL CONCERT In last week's Great Hall concert, a recital by the Spanish singer Clara Mouriz entitled Heroines in Song, the heroines in question were all mythical. The audience were provided with a free programme list and potted biographies of the singer and her pianist, Joseph Middleton, but unfortunately there were no programme notes: unless audience members were familiar with the stories or could hear and understand the words of the songs, it was a matter of guesswork as to what they were about. And yet, in a sense it didn't matter that most of us didn't know exactly what the words meant. Standing beside the piano on the bare Great Hall stage, Mouriz gave magnificently dramatic performances of these songs, conveying very effectively the situation of Ariadne abandoned on Naxos until Dionysus returned to marry her, and of Sheherazade telling her nightly stories to the Persian king, knowing she risked being executed if she reached the end (your critic has done a bit of research since the concert). The final item in the recital was the song La Maja y el Ruiseñor (the Maiden and the Nightingale) from the opera Goyescas by Granados. Inspired by a Goya painting, this song portrays Rosaria singing mournfully to the nightingale of her fears she will lose her lover Fernando in an imminent duel. In this superb song from her own country, Mouriz was well able to convey the agony of Rosario's fears. ******* The following review was accidentally omitted from subtext 110. Apologies! HENRY V RALLIES HIS TROOPS Probably the first successful film to be made of a Shakespeare play, and still one of the greatest, is Henry V, released in 1944 with Laurence Olivier in the title role and music by William Walton. The play was adapted for the screen, by Olivier and others, explicitly for propaganda purposes, on Churchill's instructions. It was released at the time of the Allied invasion of Normandy. Recognised to be a classic film score, Walton's music for the film was recast in 1990 as a suite entitled Henry V: a Shakespeare Scenario. This was performed in the first of the Great Hall concert series on 17 October by Chetham's Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, with the lines from the play delivered by the actor Nicholas Fry. The youthful musicians may lack the experience of professional groups, but they are remarkably skilful, both individually and as an ensemble. Shakespeare's writing - 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends…' and all that - never fails to strike home. This performance was more than competent; it was a very effective whole. ***************************************************** LINKS Natalia Cecire (http://nataliacecire.blogspot.co.uk/, @ncecire) neatly skewers three inconsistent orthodoxies about higher education: 1. There is a 'skills gap', meaning young people aren't getting enough high-level education. 2. We need far more teaching than we can possibly provide, which means we need MOOCs. 3. Far too many people are getting PhDs. ******* Subscribers who enjoyed our piece on the 'gagging' legislation in the last edition of subtext might enjoy Zoe William's witty, amusing and observant article in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/06/mps-may-regret-bid-to-neuter-charities ******* UCU position paper on MOOCs: http://www.ucu.org.uk/circ/pdf/UCU-EdC248-MOOCs_oct13.pdf ***************************************************** LETTERS Colin Newsham Memorial Woodland A very warm thank you to everyone who contributed to this collection. The money raised has been donated to a Woodland Trust fund and an acre of the beautiful Hyning Scout Wood near Silverdale/Warton is dedicated to and managed in Colin's memory. See http://dedicatetrees.com/FundPage.aspx?id=101250 Ginny Newsham ******* Dear subtext Even though I am as uncomfortable as Dr Richard Austen-Baker about banning publications, I am perplexed, or better, made even more uncomfortable, by his argumentation for this position. Specifically, in his first point while he argues that these publications have no effects, namely that there isn't a direct, causal link between content and attitude/behaviour, even going as far as to argue that it's actually the other way around, in his third point, he is happy to employ this very same direct, causal link to argue that Das Kapital has had direct and actually murderous effects to some of its readers. Surely, he cannot have it both ways. In his second point, he changes his mind once again. Here he acknowledges that some sort of harm is caused by these publications but somehow he comes to the evaluation that 'the harm is hardly so great as to justify such an authoritarian response'. The rest of the paragraph makes for an uncomfortable reading coming from a lecturer in law. Is he really failing to distinguish between staging a protest and calling for a ban, on the one hand, and actually imposing one, on the other? Is he really evoking authoritarianism in such a flippant, even perverse, way rendering any form of protest or boycott as authoritarian? If protest is a form of authoritarianism, what would, according to him, constitute a democratic action, I wonder? And so to directly respond to Dr. Austen-Baker's questions: Yes, you should be allowed, and you are actually allowed, to demand that Smiths stops selling Cosmopolitan or anything else. You are allowed to demand the banning of The Morning Star or the Socialist Worker for the, what you describe as, effects (here we go again) they might have on young men (thank god women don't read this sort of stuff, right?! Imagine the hygiene issues then!). And you could call to ban Woman's Hour on Radio 4, since it so gravely upsets you. However, you could only 'move on to ban' it if your protest or boycott became somehow extremely popular and effective. So, I await your protests against any of these publications or programmes with interest! Finally, putting these perplexing (if nothing else) arguments aside for a moment, I am intrigued by Dr. Austen-Baker's mention of Sade's 120 Days of Sodom and his question whether we should remove any degenerate literature from the library and destroy it, and so I wonder ... What if we were to move the 'lad mags' from W.H. Smith's shelves, but instead of banning them, we moved them to the shelves of the library? What if, as students in Lancaster University, we were encouraged not to buy these publications in order to consume them as a product, but instead to read them and study them as a cultural object? Yours faithfully, Xaroula Kerasidou ******* Dear subtext, I find Richard Austen-Baker's letter (subtext 110) disingenuous. To my mind the argument is simple: practices on campus should not endorse artifacts that promote the sexual objectification of young women. The appalling rape of a student earlier this term should be sufficient evidence that we must all take some responsibility for helping to ensure young women are safe on our campus. This incident adds to mounting evidence of the need for a counter-narrative to the serious problems emerging as a consequence of the growing influence of pornography as the primary means of youth sex education, including: some forms of sexual abuse, rape, self harm, suicide, body dysmorphia, loss of self esteem, and eating disorders, in both young men and young women. It is a growing problem that cannot be ignored by any community with responsibility for young adults. To turn this into a debate about freedom of speech merely abdicates responsibility for helping to keep all (male and female) students safe. Austen-Baker blames Das Kapital for the death of millions (as others might also blame The Will to Power); whilst debatable I fail to understand how such an argument can be made yet the pernicious influence of soft porn is not accepted. How can one connect but the other not? Banning soft porn on the shelves of newsagents on campus is making a statement that such artifactual images of young women and the messages they convey are not condoned here – no more and no less. Corinne May-Chahal ******* Dear subtext editors, Apropos Richard Austen-Baker's letter on 'Ladmags' and his bizarre comparison with The Field and Marx's Capital, it is pretty certain that - apart from the learned Lenin - none of the political figures he mentions (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al.) ever read more than a phrase or two from Marx's masterpiece of political economy, still less found in it an 'inspiration' for the atrocities committed under their regimes. The causes of these and other examples of mass killings are to be found not in individual texts, however inspirational, but in the complex interplay of objective social, economic, political, cultural, commercial, military and diplomatic forces at play at a given historical juncture. The warped individual psychological profile of most - not all - of the figures Dr Austen-Baker mentions was also a contributing subjective factor. The profound scholarly contents of Capital are more likely to numb, rather than inflame, the mind, still less inspire it to commit mass murder (though you might feel like dispatching the author). I wonder whether Dr A-B has ever read it himself? If not, before he embarks on the task, may I recommend he (and other subtext subscribers) read Francis Wheen's scintillating biography of Karl Marx (entitled such) for a wittily perceptive narrative analysis of the old man's life, lore and legacy? Comradely yours, Dr Alan Wood Senior Lecturer in Russian History (retired) ****** Dear subtext, I find that I cannot agree with Dr. Richard Austen-Baker on the issue of 'lad mags'. Dr Austen-Baker: First, I find your characterisation of feminists as authoritarian, Fair-Trade buying, chamomile tea drinking fascists a rather lame one. I'm sure you had fun writing this letter, but as a result it's all style and no substantiated argument. To the issue of harm, perhaps I could point you in the direction of a recent NUS research report on 'lad culture' in Universities: That's What She Said (http://tinyurl.com/asa5goa). The NUS found that 'lad culture', which includes lad mags, has a negative effect on women students' experience of university life. The term 'lad' first emerged in reference to magazines like Playboy, celebrating uncensored misogyny and homophobia. It perpetuates a form of 'hegemonic masculinity' that celebrates the degradation of women for sport. It also marginalises young men smart enough to want to respect their female peers. I have been a seminar tutor and lecturer on Gender & Women's Studies 101 for the last two years. I can report from the coalface that our students, female and male, find 'lad culture' to have caused them harm. They are tired of being sexually assaulted and harassed on campus, on-line and in town, they are depressed by the celebrated misogyny of Nuts magazine, they'd like to experience their time at Lancaster University without coming face-to-face with hate and contempt for their gender, sexualities, and other forms of difference. The young men in particular found the expectation on them to participate in this culture difficult to negotiate without being ostracized from their own social networks. They conducted their own research about lad culture, and I winced as they presented slide after slide of images and texts they had found in on-line forums, such as Uni-Lad and The Lad Bible, in which male university students explicitly degraded women, detailed games such as 'pull the pig', and celebrated rape as sport. To be clear, misogyny is not merely 'an unfortunate attitude to women', it is a form of hate-speech that impinges on the daily lives of most, if not all women. It is the basis of gender-based violence and sexual harassment. '1 in 3 women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime' (http://www.onebillionrising.org/). You seem to imply that given that this 'small number of young men' (a gross underestimation) already like objectifying and degrading women they should be allowed to just get on with it. The logic of your argument is that you support the right of men to abuse women as if it is equivalent to your right to play with guns. I would invite you to think again on that matter. Brigit Morris Colton ******* Dear subtext, Dr Austen-Baker offers a naïve response to the issue of whether it is appropriate for a shop trading on campus to sell soft porn 'lads' mags'. Lancaster University is in principle committed to full equality for all its members. As Sarah Beresford points out in her original letter, the Equality Act 2010 both recognises the harm that pornography effects, and makes shops which have pornographic materials on display liable for prosecution. Despite Dr Austen-Baker's claims, these kinds of materials are not benign. As the campaign website against such materials argues, 'Lads' mags promote sexist attitudes and behaviours and extensive research shows portraying women as sex objects provides a 'conducive context' for violence against women'. Those of us working in fields relating to social inequalities know that legal frameworks of rights and protections only work when accompanied by deep-seated changes in cultural attitudes and belief systems. This means we need to create a culture which fosters equality — be that through fighting for fair pay, for women to be represented in professorial and senior management positions, or against the forms of casual everyday sexism which reproduce unequal social relations. A university culture which fosters equality would not include the sale of magazines which trivialise, normalise and profit from sexist attitudes and beliefs. We, (the 90 staff and students who have signed this letter) call on the University management and businesses on campus to support the aims of the 'Lose the Lads' Mags' national campaign, http://www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/. Dr Imogen Tyler, Dr Celia Roberts, Professor Lynne Pearce, Professor Carol Thomas, Professor Maureen McNeil, Professor Charlie Lewis, Professor Corinne May-Chahal, Dr Maggie Mort, Professor Brian Wynne, Professor Maria Piacentini, Professor Ruth Wodak, Professor Lucy Suchman, Professor Paul Baker, Professor Jennie Popay, Professor Peter Diggle, Professor Andrew Sayer, Professor Alison Findlay, Professor Adrian Mackenzie, Professor Gerry Harris, Professor David Barton, Dr Sarah Beresford, Dr Jude Towers, Dr Sue Wise, Dr Karenza Moore, Jenny McAlone, Rona Murray, Dr Bruce Bennett, Ece Kocabicak, Cron Cronshaw, Simon Reader, Brigit Morris Colton, Dr David Leedal, Kate McNicholas Smith, Shona Legaspi, Philipa Olive, Omena Osivwemu, Zephyrine Barbarachild, Ali Hanbury, Caitlin Shentall, Christine Why, Dr Natalie Gill, Carolyn Higgins James, Ruth Hanson, Dawn Whittaker, Alison Clifton, Dr Allison Hui, Emma Palmer, Hannah Morgan, Dr Anne Cronin, Dr Graeme Gilloch, Ana Bê Pereira, Dr Vicky Singleton, Dr Debra Ferreday, Dr Elizabeth McDermott, Dr Mark Limmer, Beth Brockett, Rachael Eastham, Dr Kilian Bartikowski, Dr Anne-Marie Fortier, Aleksandra Mecinska, Laura Edwards, Joann Wilkinson, Juliane Jarke, Rajni Shah, Amy Calvert, Dr Marja Vehviläinen, Dr Veronika Koller, Steve Wade, Dr Uta Papen, Dr Karen Dale, Dr Jane Sunderland, Cat Prill, Dr Richard Tutton, Diane Matthewson, Dr Johnny Unger, Federica Formato, Dr Carolyn Taylor, Laura Clancy, Ozlem Zehra Tastan, Lucy Ryan, Dr Valerie Stead, Rebecca Fish, Lovena Appasami, Dr Claire Waterton, Rachel Oliphant, Dr Corinna M. Peniston-Bird, Dr Hilary Hinds, Elizabeth Houghton, Professor Allyson Fiddler ******* Hi - Following your communication today I investigated the meanings of marine flags and found the following to be both particularly amusing and utterly pertinent to Cary Cooper's suggestion of the use of flags at one's desk to indicate one's mood. The following should, in my humble opinion, become standard university issue, applicable to staff teams and/or individuals: [editors' note: we weren't able to reproduce the flags themselves here, but they can be viewed at http://www.omniglot.com/writing/imsf.htm] Actual meaning: 'Ship needs a pilot'. University meaning: 'Inadequate management steer'. Actual meaning: 'Ship has dangerous cargo'. University meaning: 'Beware - staff members WILL give management a hard time'. Actual meaning: 'Changing course to port'. University meaning: 'Office staff are increasingly left wing'. Actual meaning: 'Changing course to starboard'. University meaning: 'Office staff are increasingly right wing'. Actual meaning: 'You are standing into danger'. University meaning: 'Do not approach this staff member/team under any circumstances'. There are many more besides, all open to hilarious interpretation... Sincerely, Pam Pickles ******* Dear subtext, Love the desktop flags idea. Naturally, a red flag would mean 'Busy writing editorial for next issue'... Best, John Foster ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Sam Clark, Rachel Cooper (PPR), Mark Garnett, George Green, Ian Paylor, and Martin Widden. |