| subtext | |
|
|
subtext ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Issue 138 5 November 2015 ***************************************************** Fortnightly during term time. All letters, contributions and comments to: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk subtext does not publish material that is submitted anonymously, but will consider requests for publication with the name withheld. subtext reserves the right to edit submissions. Back issues and subscription details can be found at www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email folder', see: www.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/dejunk/ CONTENTS: editorial, NSS, special report: statutes, senate, lads in arms, George Osborne, sandwiches, Charlie Pottins, Jeremy Corbyn, concert review, letters. ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Here is your starter for ten… does the University of Lancaster belong in the public or the private sector? We're a public university, aren't we? Publicly funded and carrying out a public role. Well, that was probably true until recently but, as our HEFCE teaching grant has substantially reduced in recent years, so - arguably - has our public role. Are we really that different these days, legally speaking, from a large private boarding school? subtext believes that the proposed changes to our statutes, agreed overwhelmingly by Senate this week, need to be considered in this context. For chartered universities, the statutes are the rules of public significance, while the ordinances set out the internal, private rules. Changes to statutes need Privy Council approval; changes to ordinances just need the assent of Council and Senate. The approved proposals are very wide-ranging. The rules governing the following are to be deleted from Lancaster's statutes and moved to ordinances: The Syndicates of the Colleges The Faculties The Departments The Students' Union while the following positions will be deleted entirely: The University Secretary The Librarian and it will no longer be a requirement of our statutes that there be a complaints and disclosures policy for staff. Each time, the text being deleted is described as "an aspect of internal organisation which is the business of the University and thus more appropriate for approval and revision via Ordinances than through the Privy Council." Wow. Change on this scale needs full scrutiny, but as our report from Senate indicates, this does not seem to have happened. Furthermore, we understand that Council's discussion was wrapped up with the Pro-Chancellor, Lord Liddle, awakening from his usual mid-discussion snooze to declare the meeting to be in full agreement. subtext wonders how many Heads of Department and student reps realised the significance of what they have approved. Both the Senate and the University Council have been predictably muted, unimposing and spineless in the face of these proposals, and as such, subtext will devote much of this issue to analysing this swingeing institutional change in greater detail. ***************************************************** NSS: A CHANGE OF TONE? Another year and yet again the topic near the top of the University's agenda is the National Student Survey (NSS). The NSS is the main vehicle for student feedback in UK universities. It's sent to final-year students to gather views about what they think about the quality of their course and institution. The results are used to compile university league tables, However, subtext notes a change in tone regarding the University's approach – perhaps helped by the fact we had a very good result last year – overall and in most departments. But is does appear that the 'penny has dropped' with the University recognising that the NSS is a source of frustration because of the way such a subjective evaluation is routinely recycled as a statement about the quality of a course. The NSS does not measure educational quality. It is, as Amanda Chetwynd and Sharon Huttly state, a very fragile entity. The mood in the various workshops to discuss the results was less hectoring and 'pull your socks up' and more 'we are all in this together'. Talk is of identified areas for University-level action to work with departments, including curriculum design (e.g. Part I review), assessment and feedback practices and processes, assessment structures, recognition and reward for teaching, teaching spaces and timetabling. Colleagues from the Library, ISS and OED have indicated how they could contribute to these efforts. This all might be like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, given the impending Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). However, subtext is pleasantly surprised at the change in attitude shown and hopes this is indicative of a new mood amongst management – but we are not holding our breath. ***************************************************** SPECIAL REPORT: LIMITATION OF STATUTES Readers of subtext who were with us in 2013 will remember the heavy-handed, under-handed and savage closure of our Music degree. This decision was a foregone conclusion that was taken with little consultation, by the faculty management within FASS. An explanation was only brought to the Senate by the then FASS Dean, Professor McEnery, after the fact, and only after extensive lobbying by LUSU and the UCU. All of this was completely above board: as Music was not a department but rather a constituent part of its department, LICA, the Faculty was able to obliterate it without ever bringing it to a higher body for discussion: a responsibility that Senate had delegated some years previously. One of the closing sentiments from that farrago was the feeling that some broader accountability for such significant change needed to be put in place in the future. Fast forward two years, and the University has now made it far, far easier to close down or drastically alter departments, faculties, colleges, and the students' union – their existence is now no longer represented by the statutes, changes to which require approval by the Privy Council, but by the ordinances, which require approval by the Senate and the Council of the University. While D-Floor will undoubtedly argue that the Senate and the Council are accountable and consultative bodies, recent events have again shown the Senate to be utterly spineless, and the Council to be easily biddable. The colleges, students' union, faculties and departments all had the opportunity to unite against new powers that can severely limit their safety and autonomies when it came to Senate, and chose not to: they may come to regret their disinterest should these new powers be used against them. In the proposal, penned by the University Secretary with her usual rigour, a chap by the name of Bill Rammell is cited as an authority on university governance who has recommended just these sorts of changes. Who he? Bill Rammell is a disgraced former HE Minister in the Tony Blair government who was forced to repay thousands in false claims during the expenses scandal. More recently, he has been busy serving as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire, which has dropped by ten places in the league tables to 117th since he took office. Currently he is under fire for inviting hundreds of staff to apply for voluntary redundancy while he himself has claimed well above the national average for travel expenses for him and Professor Helen Bailey, who was promoted to a six-figure salary roughly around the time that they entered into a relationship with each other. If anybody is to be regarded as a pioneering benchmark of institutional best practice, it's got to be good ol' Bill. Elsewhere, there is the usual hand-wringing over legal compliance that is never fully explained, and the need to remain fast-moving and competitive, all meaningless buzzwords that will have had the University Council salivating in delight. But, some of the proposals conceal a few interesting behaviours that presumably passed everyone by. *** RETROACTIVITY There are some changes to the membership of the Senate, namely deleting the now non-existent Librarian and the Deans of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Study. All very well: the two Deans were (wisely, we feel) replaced by a Pro Vice-Chancellor for Education – the newly appointed Professor Sharon Huttly, and there is no sense in reserving a place for a position which no longer exists. More interesting, however, is the addition of the Provost of Colleges, Student Experience & Library (currently Professor Chetwynd, who took up the post when it replaced the position of Pro Vice-Chancellor Colleges & Student Experience, coincidentally just as she was nearing the end of her term of office in that post and would no longer have been able to serve), and the Director of Quality Assurance and Enhancement (currently Professor Wright.) It is perfectly within the gift of the Council and the Senate to constitutionally enshrine new parts of its membership, but given that these positions have only now been granted membership, subtext wonders what the status and validity is of the numerous previous meetings of the Senate on which both Chetwynd and Wright have been sitting and voting? Proposals to the Senate are (nominally) to be voted on democratically by its membership – is it really legally compliant for non-members to be voting on that body? Is this the behaviour of a fast moving and competitive institution? What would Bill Rammell think? *** COURTLY BOWS FROM THE S.U Some changes to the membership of the University Court have been made. The University Court is the largest gathering of committees, local dignitaries, alumni and others, held annually. It has been decided, with no apparent resistance from the Students' Union, that the size of LUSU's delegation (which hitherto comprised of the entirety of its Union Council) is to be limited to 54. This is roughly the current size of Union Council, but means that while it can expand its membership, it cannot send any extra members to the Court. This creates several problems: the SU is highly unlikely to increase its membership to 3000 any time soon, but clearly it's better to be safe than sorry. But what if the Union Council were to increase its membership by a paltrier amount – say, to 59 members? How is the body supposed to decide which five poor souls are to miss out? Union Council has been known to have a difficult enough time electing as few as five members to various committees. Occasionally it has forgotten to hold elections for such things entirely. You might think that this is a sensible means of preventing the Court from becoming more unwieldy than it is already… … except! The cap on alumni members of the Court is being increased from 20 to 24, while the cap on Council appointed external members has been raised from 20 to 30! Meanwhile, bodies such as trade unions and professional societies have seen their caps lowered considerably. Maybe now, you might think that this is a sensible means of preventing troublesome proposals put by the likes of the SU from being passed. Like they were at its previous meeting, in which we saw an unprecedented humiliation of the top table as the SU members voted for motions condemning the Council, with additional voting support mainly coming from… trade unions and professional societies! Even though the Vice-Chancellor subsequently squashed the Court's rebellion with the assistance of the Council, one wonders if he is now neutering that body completely. Having 'built bridges' with the University, the SU has now constructed stocks around its own neck: the President has voted in favour of the proposals at each stage. Furthermore, a proposal that drastically affects LUSU Council's delegation to an elevated university body was not even brought to LUSU Council for discussion. University Council is now able to pack the Court further with people of its own choosing. This is not the only way in which Council is tightening its grip on how the votes are going to go. *** TO INFINITY The standard term of office for a lay member of the Council was originally six years. Under exceptional circumstances, the Nominations Committee is entitled to extend any appointment. The Council has decided that it does not wish to actually explain, in any constitutional way, what these exceptional circumstances may be. Make of that what you will. *** Broadly speaking, these drastic changes, which are by no means the largest in our history but certainly could be considered a final destructive act, render every constituent body of the University insecure, and those in them unable to feel that they are there on a permanent footing. The rationale might decry 'complex and lengthy… approvals by the Privy Council', but these are complexities that hitherto could perhaps have reined in the University and forced them into greater consideration of their proposals. By making it easier to implement closures, restructures and redundancies, those who voted through these changes have gravely endangered the future existence and security of their respective departments. ***************************************************** SENATE REPORT: 4/11/2015 As now seems to be the norm at Senate, there were no questions on notice for the Vice-Chancellor, so we moved swiftly to his usually very informative oral report. He informed Senate that the QAA institutional audit was still underway but we will be told the outcome within two weeks of its completion. The Government's 'Prevent' legislation was now in force and the university had a legal duty to monitor the student body for indications of 'extremist' influence. When asked how Lancaster would define 'extremism' he was unable to give a definitive answer because, in reality, there wasn't one. The university would be advised by HEFCE and we would deal with these matters on a case by case basis. We were deemed to be a low risk university when it comes to extremism (whatever that might be) and consequently would take a low key approach. He did not anticipate there would be much noticeable impact on daily life and overall he gave the impression that Lancaster would do the minimum to comply with the law and no more. Turning to our international activities, he asked the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (International), Professor Bradley, to give an update on our latest venture in China (subtext passim ad infinitum). This involves a teaching partnership with Beijing Jiaotong University (BJTU) and would take the form of a joint institute on a campus that has already been built. The planning and approval process was underway and it was hoped that the new joint institution would be open for students by October. However, mindful of Lancaster's previous – and comically fruitless - Chinese venture (we've been definitely going to China since 2011), Professor Bradley was cautious in assessing the likelihood of success this time round. Back to the VC, with some cheering news on recruitment and research income. Overall admissions were up on last year but there was a decline in international recruitment. Time would tell if the fall in overseas numbers was a blip or the start of a trend. Research income had increased significantly on last year and Lancaster, at 23rd in the league table for this, was now near where it should be. He then turned to the imminent departure of the University Secretary, Fiona Aiken. He confirmed that she would be retiring on 31st March and that he was 'thinking strategically' about what happens next. However, to avoid speculation (clearly a bad thing) he was announcing now that the role of University Secretary would be subsumed into that of the Chief Administrative Officer (Nicola Owen), just as subtext knew (but couldn't tell you) in its previous issue. This would involve a restructure of some parts of Professional Services, but he wanted to reassure Senate that there would be no job losses as a result. As he put it: "Re-structuring is often used as a euphemism for downsizing". Quite. And downsizing is a euphemism for…..? Discussions with affected staff were now underway, and we must assume that the trade unions are being fully consulted. The VC finished his report with some speculation of his own on the possible content of the government's Green Paper on HE, due for publication soon. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) would figure prominently and some long established sectoral bodies – HEFCE, QAA etc. – were likely to axed. There is also to come the conclusions of the Nurse Review of research support, so in all likelihood we will soon be faced with a whole new set of initials and acronyms to memorise for the delight and entertainment of friends and family. On, then, to the main agenda items. First up was Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education), Professor Huttly, with a proposal to establish an Education Committee as a standing committee of Senate. Older subtext readers may recall that we used to have something called a Teaching and Learning Committee which concerned itself with those two activities. However, with one of his many flashes of insight, the then Deputy VC Professor McKinlay determined that the university would be a better place without this encumbrance and persuaded Senate to abolish it. Professor Huttly's proposed Education Committee would restore many of the functions of this group but would have considerably more power and authority. Crucially, it would involve the delegation of Senate's remit to make policy in this area. One would have assumed that such significant changes would have occasioned at least some debate but, apart from a question seeking clarification on the nature of the delegation of powers, Senate seemed remarkably uncurious about the implications of this initiative, and the proposal was accepted without a vote. Next came a proposal from the new Dean of LUMS, Professor Angus Laing, for a new Doctor of Management award. This was Professor Laing's first outing at senate and his fluent and concise explanation of his proposal went down well and was duly accepted. There followed a request for approval from the Director of Quality Assurance and Enhancement, Professor Wright, for a triple accreditation arrangement for the European Masters in Management programme (approved), and an update from PVC for Research Professor Decent on progress in establishing three new Research Institutes. On to what should have been the climactic bout of the afternoon: the University Secretary's proposals for changes to University Statutes and Ordinances. These had already been approved by University Council, and Senate was now being asked to concur. Previous proposals for constitutional changes had occasioned much argument and occasional (metaphorical) bloodletting at Senate. This time the atmosphere was strangely muted. Ms. Aiken outlined her reasons for seeking these changes, stating that they were necessary to enable the university to "remain competitive and innovative in the current higher education market place". The key proposal was to change a large number of university functions and components from being regulated by Statute to being covered by Ordinances. This would mean that any subsequent changes would not have to be submitted for approval to the Privy Council, as is currently the case. As is his wont when chairing Senate, the VC made it clear which way he wanted the vote to go, citing no less an authority than Bill Rammell, who as Minister for HE in 2006, exhorted all universities to go down this path. Many had done just that and Lancaster was in danger of being left behind. Speaking against the proposal, Mr Thornberry (LUSU) said that it was important that any constitution had checks and protections that were not easy to change and this was the case here. The Privy Council was one such check and was a deterrence against making hasty and ill-considered changes that would turn out to be bad for the university. The parts of the university that would be affected by this change to Statutes – departments, faculties, colleges, the students' union – were not simply "aspects of internal organisation" as stated by the University Secretary, but key components in making Lancaster University what it is and should retain their protection in Statute. In his years on Senate he had witnessed many constitutional changes and all of them had resulted in increased power for "the centre". Some may think this is a good thing but he did not. He was supported by Dr Unger (FASS) who pointed to the dangers of a future, less liberal, university management being enabled to make changes that could seriously damage the university as we know it. But theirs were lone voices and Senate voted overwhelmingly in favour of the changes. The final substantial item was a report from a working group on the development of a Transparent Allocation Model for use during the university's planning rounds. This would make clear the actual costs of any university activity so that those costs could be more equitably apportioned. Other universities had developed similar models and it was possible that like-minded universities could co-operate and enable comparisons and benchmarking between universities as well as within them. With this item, Senate at last came to life and there were more questions and comments about this work-in-progress than for the rest of the agenda items put together. We in subtext anticipate that the operation of this model, when finalised, will provide us with much interesting material for future editions. ***************************************************** CONFUSED LADS Students and indeed staff are constantly offered flyers and leaflets as we go about our daily trek up and down the spine. Sometimes these Xeroxed missives don't quite convey exactly what the dispatcher had in mind. Your spine correspondent was quietly walking back down from Charles Carter after delivering some honeyed words of wisdom when he chanced to overhear the following exchange. Two chaps, one slightly taller than the other, were reading a yellow sheet of A4. "Says here that the university is involved in the arms trade." "What are they doing buying arms for?" "Dunno – makes you think though. What do you think they do with arms? "Sell them on I reckon." "Yeah – they wouldn't use them, would they?" "Don't think so." ***************************************************** DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST As we approach George Osborne's autumn spending review the rumour mill has begun to kick-in. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has already predicted it will face further reductions. We hear that the research councils are to be merged with subsequent redundancies and of course less research monies to be distributed – wicked talk of the Chancellor reneging on REF money promises. Speculation abounds about how the review, which will be published on 25 November 2015, will both invest in priority public services and deliver the £20 billion further savings required to eliminate Britain's deficit by 2019/2020. Over the years, many business and government management models have found their way onto campus in an attempt to deal with the increased marketization of Universities. And with the sector spending in the region of £10bn every year on buying goods and services, universities are looking to reorganise – through outsourcing or collaborative procurement – to reduce costs. With outsourcing the question of control is a major issue in two key areas - control that universities give up, and control that they haven't got because technology has outstripped the way they operate. An example of the former is the outsourcing of services including the provision of course modules to private-sector providers. And just down the road, according to Hannah Breeze, the University of Manchester is relinquishing a degree of command over its IT provision – see the link below. We do live in scary times and we do not just mean the increasing commercialisation of Halloween, now apparently the third highest grossing festival of the year. ***************************************************** DISPARATE ADVERTISING On his journey into work your travel correspondent spotted four human sandwich board advertisements. Strategically placed/stood at the traffic light junction outside the Infirmary; at the edge of the Pointer roundabout, outside the Bowerham Hotel and on the A6 at the corner of Collingham Park. All dotted along the route into the University. subtext shan't name the product being advertised for fear of giving them any more publicity. At first your correspondent thought it was a piece of performance art satirising the misery caused by consumer capitalism, but soon realised that it is a real advertising campaign. Charles Dickens is attributed as coining the phrase "sandwich men" and famously described these advertisers as "a piece of human flesh between two slices of paste board". For many it is an enduring image of the darkest days of the Great Depression in the USA - jobless men so desperate for work that they roamed the streets as living billboards. Others see sandwich boards as a great tool to spread the word about their product, a way of advertising their product while also saving money by avoiding other costly advertising measures. We are used to seeing various low paid folk in the West End of London 'working' as human billboards wearing eye catching outfits and costumes to attract the eyes of passers-by. Why should your travel correspondent find the use of this particular type of advertising so unsettling on his journey into work – subtext welcomes subscribers' view on this topic. ***************************************************** CHARLIE POTTINS: A REMEMBRANCE Word has reached subtext of the sad death of Charlie Pottins, a Lancaster alumnus well known to some of our older (and not so old) readers. Charlie came to Lancaster as an undergraduate in 1969 to study History and Politics. He was a part of that generation of working-class mature students, with a strong grounding in left-wing politics and trade unionism, which had a major impact on the culture of this new university. He was a member of the Socialist Labour League, a fundamentalist Trotskyist grouping renowned for the dour political workaholism of its membership. Charlie, though, never fitted the stereotype. He was witty, sociable, and well-read with broad interests in music, art and literature. He would often be seen on the Spine, selling his newspapers and happily engaging anyone in conversation. He was also a gifted organiser and was instrumental in establishing the Socialist Society on campus which for the first (and only) time united the various left-wing factions into a major force in the university. His musical interests landed him his own weekly show on Bailrigg FM (then known as Radio Bailrigg), "The Night belongs to Charlie", a topical Vietnam War reference. Between his mostly jazz and blues records, Charlie would regale his audience with his musings on the university, politics, culture and anything that took his fancy. A big favourite with listeners was his hilarious, deadpan readings from Spike Milligan's "Adolf Hitler: My part in his downfall." One of his best moments came when the Vice-Chancellor, Charles Carter, exasperated by yet another student occupation instigated by the Socialist Society, decreed that all students would be required to sign a pledge of good behaviour as a condition of receiving their grant cheques. Younger readers will probably have never heard of these exotic instruments but in those days students received a termly cheque from their local authorities which was sent to University House for students to pick up at their convenience. Charlie went up to the cashiers on B Floor, refused to sign the behaviour pledge, and on being denied his grant, vaulted over the counter, riffled through the pile, and walked away with his cheque. Faced with the prospect of this happening a hundredfold, and knowing that they didn't have a leg to stand on, the university authorities caved in and withdrew the behaviour pledge. Unlike many university militants who abandoned their radicalism on entering the world of employment, Charlie remained committed to the Trotskyist cause for the rest of his life. He was never a sectarian and was happy to support any cause if he thought it was right. He was perhaps best known for his work in the Jewish Socialists' Group, a group of British Jews active in the labour and trade union movement who opposed the policies of successive Israeli governments. He wrote regularly to The Guardian and his pithy, incisive letters about Palestine often brought down on him the wrath of the Israeli Embassy Press Office. He was also a prolific blogger, and to catch a flavour of Charlie, his blog can still be accessed: http://randompottins.blogspot.co.uk/ [subtext invites its readers to write in with their own memories of Charlie, at the usual address.] ***************************************************** JEZZAMANIA Tonight (Thursday 5th November), Jeremy Corbyn MP will be speaking at the Priory Church in Lancaster. Tickets were made available on 29 October and all 500 were allocated within 24 hours. Hundreds of people have been disappointed. This is significant. The last time a major political figure caused such a stir in Lancaster was when Margaret Thatcher made an impromptu visit to Market Square in 2001, and nearly provoked a riot. Corbyn is guaranteed a somewhat warmer reception. Is this the sign of a political movement committing self-immolation, or a real political shift? The "media commentariat", as JC would describe them, are either bemused (Guardian, Independent), amused (Guido, Buzzfeed) or plain abusive (Telegraph, Times). Here are some thoughts. - He's not Chauncey Gardiner. Many, many people have suggested that Corbyn's earthly homilies and manner bear a resemblance to Peter Sellers' character in "Being There" - and that pic with the marrow boosted this impression. This comparison doesn't work. The satirical point about "Chauncey" was that his speeches were warm, emotive and entirely without content. Corbyn, despite the make-it-up-as-he-goes-along style, always thinks about what he wants to say and tries to make an intellectual point. - But he might be Brian Clough. subtext is struck by the similarities of Corbyn's position with that of Mr Clough (as portrayed by Michael Sheen, anyway) in "The Damned United". The sullen resentment of the longstanding Leeds players to any new ideas; the long passive-aggressive silences in the team meetings; the open attempts to undermine their new leader - yep, sounds like the atmosphere at recent meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party, if reports are to be believed! Will a run of poor results lead to open rebellion and a rapid exit? - And he certainly could be Harry Perkins. Comparisons with the hero of "A Very British Coup" are completely obvious, but relevant. Of course, Perkins won his election, and Corbyn has yet to achieve that kind of success. But if Corbyn were to win an election . . . ?! - subtext expects that, even though we're decades on from the Cold War, we could still expect events to play out in a similar fashion, with calls for a "government of national unity" to avoid an "impending crisis". subtext is optimistic, but realistic, about Corbyn's chances - both within his own party and with the electorate. Each election will be a "test of Corbyn's leadership", even if it's an election for parliamentary paperclips rep. Every loss will be a "new crisis for Corbyn", every gain will be "despite Mr Corbyn's recent problems". Will he last? We await his first major electoral test in May with interest. ***************************************************** DIABELLI VARIATIONS GET THE FULL TREATMENT The major work in the opening concert of the season of Great Hall concerts was the set of variations on a theme of Diabelli, by Beethoven. In 1819, Anton Diabelli, one of the publishers of Beethoven's music, sent his own short waltz theme to a large number of composers, requesting each of them to write a variation on the theme. Fifty composers responded positively. It appears Diabelli's business was suffering a low period, and he hoped to revive it by publishing in a single volume the variations by all the different composers, including Beethoven, Schubert, Hummel and the young Liszt. Inevitably, most of the responses were no more than embellishments of the original theme, which was in itself pretty mundane: hearing or playing them one after another would be very tedious. Rather than writing a single variation, Beethoven offered to compose a full set himself - and typically, what he wrote was a huge set of 33 variations which is now recognised as ranking with Bach's Goldberg Variations as among the greatest sets of variations for keyboard ever written. Beethoven has the reputation of having been cantankerous and difficult, but it is his vigour and his sense of humour that often emerge more strongly from his music, as in his first variation on the Diabelli theme, a pompous march which immediately raises a smile. Later variations provide reflective melodies, a quotation from Mozart's Don Giovanni, and, at the end, a grand fugue. Beethoven's Diabelli Variations were played in the Great Hall on 22 October by the pianist Sunwook Kim. Born in Korea, Sunwook Kim came to international recognition when he won the Leeds International Piano Competition in 2006, at the age of just 18 - the youngest winner in the history of the competition and the first Asian pianist to win. Since then, he has performed with many leading orchestras and conductors, and has given solo recitals around the world. In his performance of the Diabelli Variations, Kim plunged in immediately with a vigorous and rapid exposition of the original theme, which set the tone of his performance of this hour-long work, which he played entirely from memory and with evident enjoyment. He played the more introspective variations with real insight. He was readily able to meet the great technical challenges of the work, and to penetrate to the heart of this huge work. A brilliant start to the season. ***************************************************** LETTERS Dear exalted subtext team, You may already be aware of the Scrooge-like stance that the University are taking with regard to Christmas Eve and those staff wishing to take it as annual leave. I thought, however, to raise this issue just in case it has slipped by Subtext's radar. It has now been confirmed on the University webpage regarding Statutory, University and Discretionary Holidays that those staff working on Christmas Eve will be allowed to finish for the day at 12.45, a half day gift from the VC. 'The spirit of Christmas is alive on D-Floor' one might cry. Or is it. For those unfortunates taking Christmas Eve as annual leave, in my case because the Pre-School is closed that week and we have two children who attend, a full day of leave will be deducted. We have had this confirmed in writing by HR this morning. What? Really? Is D-Floor really intent on punishing staff for having the temerity to take Christmas Eve off? Surely not….. Can I put another piece of coal on the fire Professor Smith? Paul Arthur ******** Dear subtext, Question: Why is Costa Coffee advertising on the University HR page for workers? James Smith. [Any takers? Eds.] ******** Dear subtext editors, I recently received the attached from a friend who works for the swoosh police. You may be interested. http://tinyurl.com/ofyk8qr Regards, Richard ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: George Green, James Groves, Ian Paylor, Ronnie Rowlands, Joe Thornberry, Johnny Unger and Martin Widden. |