| subtext | |
|
|
subtext
issue 31 18 December 2007 ***************************************************** 'Truth: lies open to all' ***************************************************** Every fortnight. All editorial correspondence to: subtext-editors [at] 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. For tips to prevent subtext from getting swept up into your 'junk email ***************************************************** CONTENTS: editorial, IS RIP, Council working party on tuition fees, losing our faculties, recycling, Council, o tempora o mores, spinal tap, letters ***************************************************** EDITORIAL Well, it's that time of year again, so here is our festive round robin to let all 830 of you know how the subtext family is getting on. The children – how they have grown! Was it only two years ago that we were cradling the first issues in our arms, cooing at them? It's hard to believe they were just four pages tall - and now they're towering over us! This year's crop has been busy already. subtext 17 is now working for Study Group, teaching Foundation Brain Surgery 2 (we thought she was too young, but apparently not, and she says it's easier than the paper round). The twins, subtext 23 and subtext 24 (born just two weeks apart – it was a difficult labour) are on a gap year, touring round other universities to help them avoid being seduced by unrealistic science park fantasies (now that's what we call knowledge transfer!). During the year we managed to refurbish the subtext warehouse – or the H-head-quarters-Q, as we call it in honour of Corporal Jones from Dad's Army. The upper stories have been converted into a combination of working podules and 'club space', where we can all lounge about on bean bags at elevenses and high tea. The old Lonsdale Senior Common Room has been lovingly recreated in one club space area, complete with 1970s swirling prints for the curtains, Shirley’s old coffee urn bubbling away 24/7 in the corner, and home-made cakes each with a little religious tract baked into them. We've also had a glass loft added on top of the original building – our very own D-floor! In November we were short-listed by Architecture Today for their 'Monstrous Carbuncle on the Face of a Much-Loved and Elegant Friend' award 2007, through a blind marking process. Which was nice. Before last week's end of term warehouse party we got the Christmas decorations out again – you know, the giant inflatable deputy vice-chancellor digging himself out of a hole on the lawn, the flashing neon motto (though the local kids keep rearranging the letters to make rude words). But we keep getting complaints that we're making the University too visually intrusive. I really don’t think the people of Barrow have the right to criticise, with their DDH shipbuilding shed visible from over here and lit up like a Christmas tree! Last month, tragedy struck. Young subtext 30 let slip that all the full-page adverts, pull-outs, inserts and pop ups we get paid to put into subtext don't get through the Majordomo list manager, so the public never gets to see them. Most of our advertisers immediately cancelled their contracts. So it's going to be a lean Christmas. The kids have been clamouring for their formats to be redecorated, but I'm afraid it's going to be plain text in Courier New font size 10 at least until Estates cough up their rent. Oh, didn't I mention – we sublet part of our ground floor to them – so nestling alongside the two 'Q's from QinetiQ is the university erratic. Merry Christmas and a Happy 2008!
INDEPENDENT STUDIES RIP Anyone arriving at the University in the last four years or so may not be aware of the School of Independent Studies (IS), once a colourful but highly regarded site of innovative teaching, learning and research at the University. Those who do know about it will be sad to hear that, after suffering the death of a thousand cuts for the last decade or so, the last remaining pieces of IS are to be put through the shredder at the end of this academic year. This milestone comes with the closure of the Innovation and Enterprise Unit (created out of IS in 2003), the laying down of the Independent Studies Part 1, and the 'teaching out' of the last cohort on the BA in Consultancy and Independent Research. The remaining IEU staff will be redeployed to the Lancaster Institute for the Contemporary Arts (LICA) and to the new School of Health and Medicine (SHAM), and some of the activity going on at IEU will find a home elsewhere, but the end of this academic year must surely be the time to mourn the passing of IS. Those that remember it with great affection include not just its graduates, many of whom are now academic members of the University, but copious others who saw the value of treating undergraduate students as independent researchers in their own right. The complex story of IS's birth, its many transmogrifications, and its final demise, says a great deal about how the University - and Higher Education - have changed over recent decades. Its influence – and indeed many of its former constituent elements – can be found across the University, suggesting that IS ought to commission someone to draw a 'family tree' like those that Pete Frame does for rock groups. subtext cannot promise that, but readers can expect a history of IS, and an attempt to assess its significance, to appear in these pages next term. ***************************************************** COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON TUITION FEES It did not find favour with the Vice-Chancellor, though, who indicated that he saw no point in the group continuing and was not prepared to engage in what he regarded as 'theatre' and posturing with LUSU on this matter. UMAG would be receiving information and evaluating the situation and there already exists a group considering tuition fees and their implications for student recruitment at Lancaster. The Vice-Chancellor's blood pressure visibly seemed to rise further as the LUSU President responded that this was all very well, but LUSU was neither represented on UMAG nor the tuition fees group. Other Council members weighed in but perhaps the most telling remark was said to come from one of the Deputy Pro-Chancellors who quietly commented on the Vice-Chancellor's views in terms of being fundamentally opposed to them and of them being a 'denial of democracy'. The way forward was identified by the chair, Bryan Gray, the Pro-Chancellor, in a somewhat pointed suggestion that this was something the Vice-Chancellor and the LUSU President should continue talking about outside the meeting. Judging by the incandescent look on the Vice-Chancellor's face, few would take bets on this happening but subtext can report that attempts are being made to find a compromise before the group reports back to the next meeting of University Court on 26 January. ***************************************************** Senior members of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) have been expressing concern about increasingly detailed memos being circulated from the Vice-Chancellor about the process of selecting their new Dean. On 10 December an email was circulated around the Faculty to remind colleagues that 'lead nominators must consult with the Vice-Chancellor regarding proposed candidates', suggesting that this be undertaken 'via a short email proposal'. But then on 14 December the present Dean circulated an email from the VC that spelled out an even more detailed process: 'Lead nominators are required to talk to the Vice-Chancellor prior to the submission of nominations to ensure that candidates are likely to be acceptable to the University. 'There are a number of selection criteria for this position. I expect that lead nominators will have analysed the requirements of the job and will be able to outline the strengths of their nomination to me. In particular, prospective candidates do need to have the capacity to provide strong leadership and management of a large and diverse faculty. This should include demonstrated previous experience in managing a cost centre with complex teaching and research activities. 'It would be helpful if you would convey this message to those groups considering nominating candidates. I wish to avoid a situation where Senate or Council is forced to express reservations about individuals because they do not appear to meet the basic requirements of the job. 'I am available to meet with lead nominators at times during the period 14-20 December, inclusive. They should call Michelle Needham to make an appointment wth me [sic].' Around the Faculty one repeatedly encounters a vague sense of discomfort that something significant has changed, without being clear exactly what. Didn't we used to elect our Deans? Has the VC always had such a say in the matter? It is hard to find anyone who can authoritatively state what has changed and what hasn't. So, for the record, here is our version. Twenty years ago, Deans were indeed democratically elected from their Faculty. More than this, they remained on an academic contract, and were largely seen as an academic primus inter pares - representing the Faculty within the university, supporting the work of its constituent departments and working with its committees to help shape its future. During the gathering of nominations the Vice-Chancellor would expect to be sounded out about candidates' suitability, but this was done informally. Now, Deans are seen primarily as managers, responsible for management plans, human resources, budget setting and so on. They are placed on senior management contracts, expected to work as part of the wider University management team, and are selected in a more controlled way to ensure that they fit with the ethos of senior management. A sense of these changes can be gleaned from the three current Faculty constitutions, usefully made available on the otherwise disappointing Secretariat website (http://tinyurl.com/2eudd5). * Of the three constitutions, that of the Management School (LUMS) dates back to 1998, and describes an academic Dean of the old style, elected by the School's members. It adds that, after the call for nominations, 'the vice-chancellor shall be consulted to ensure that candidates would not be unacceptable to the rest of the university'. * The constitution for the Faculty of Science and Technology, revised in 2005, describes its Dean in far more managerial terms. Here, the Dean is chosen by an 'appointing group' largely elected from the Faculty but chaired by the VC - though interestingly there is no mention of consulting with the VC over nominations. * The FASS constitution, also from 2005, describes a similarly managerial Dean, also selected by an appointment committee chaired by the VC, and adds that the 'lead nominator ... shall take responsibility for liaising with the Vice-Chancellor about the nomination'. Indeed, we ought to be concerned about changes, however apparently subtle, in the way that Deans are selected. But we ought to be at least as concerned about the wider transformation in the University of which these small changes are a part - and indeed the ease with which this transformation has apparently been carried out. At the time the new constitutions were proposed, some members of the University raised serious concerns, but most seemed to find such matters arcane and irrelevant. Only LUMS successfully staved off the pressure to hastily 'modernise' their constitution in 2005, buying enough time for substantial discussion and negotiation. In their draft new constitution, still to be discussed by Senate, they too have had to bow to the pressure for the Dean to be chosen by an appointing committee chaired by the VC – but not before inserting a set of core values and foundational principles of governance – and the provision for a vote of no confidence if the Faculty loses confidence in its Dean. Why are we not more vigilant? Are we losing our faculties? In the memorable words that Joni Mitchell sang in Big Yellow Taxi, will we only appreciate the significance of ordinances, constitutions and procedures when it's too late? ***************************************************** RECYCLING ON CAMPUS How many hours have you spent in the last few years forcing plastic bottles one by one through the tiny openings in those giant skips helpfully positioned at the most windswept corners of the University campus? Go on, tot it up. Have you used that time productively? Have you used it to convince yourself that the bottles probably all end up in an incinerator in China anyway? Or have you used it to think up a zillion different and better ways of organising recycling on campus? If the latter, you might well have noticed that arrangements for recycling have undergone something of an improvement in recent months. Jonathan Mills was appointed as Environment and Sustainability Manager in August this year (after a year's lacuna - you may remember that we interviewed Sharon Woodruff, the outgoing Environmental Manager, in subtext 10), and he has clearly been working hard, in close collaboration with LUSU and Green Lancaster, to improve recycling on campus. Historically, recycling rates at the University of Lancaster have been rather low. The People and Planet Green League 2007 reports that HE and FE institutions in the UK recycle an average of 16% of their waste (measured by weight), although performance varies widely amongst institutions, with Southampton recycling most at 68%. In the year to October 2006 the University of Lancaster recycled only 4% of its waste, which contributed to its being positioned in the middle, 'Must try harder', division of People and Planet's rankings (see http://tinyurl.com/3yfbzt). However, Jonathan tells us that various new initiatives have started to improve Lancaster's recycling figure, increasing it to around 12% in June and July 2007, and possibly to as much as 23% in October. The main reasons for this rapid rise seem to be an awareness raising campaign organised by Estates and Green Lancaster; the siting of 1100 litre 'eurobins' for newspapers, office paper, glass, cans, and plastic bottles in virtually all bin areas on campus, each labelled using the standard symbols promoted by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (http://www.wrap.org.uk/); internal recycling schemes in administration and teaching areas; and pilot recycling schemes in student residences in County, Furness and Fylde. Initially, at least, this progress will not be without its financial costs; even though Salt Ayre landfill site in Morecambe is now closed to new waste, and our unrecycled waste has to go to sites in Clifton Marsh, Preston or Fleetwood, it still costs a lot more to send a ton of waste to be recycled than to dispatch it to landfill. But with landfill costs continuing to rise, it can only be a matter of time before pressing economic reasons for increasing our recycling join the ecological ones. So as you pop your plastic bottle into that nice little bin-ette as you walk down the corridor, or as you tip a bag full of recyclates into a eurobin on the way to lunch, you can fleetingly hark back to all that time you spent posting bottles and cans one by one into the old banks and skips around the perimeter road. And maybe you can look forward to a time when, in order to consign an old crisp packet and half a sandwich to landfill, you'll have to walk out somewhere past the weather station at Hazelrigg, brave a pack of guard dogs, and try to post your items through a tiny hole in the side of a rusty old skip. Only to find that it's full. ***************************************************** COUNCIL Cary Cooper gave a presentation on External Relations, highlighting the opening of the Media Centre at the university on 26 November, a greatly improved record of alumni donations and in obtaining resources from the private sector to support academic activity, success in getting exposure in national rather than local media, the importance of an online presence, and the need to 'hit London' - i.e. establish a Lancaster presence there. The argument was that Lancaster had come a long way in a short time, from a low baseline of activity, but that it still spent less than its competitors on external relations. The business of the meeting looked substantial, from the volume of paper provided, but a large part of this consisted of the University's accounts, and there were few items that provoked discussion. Council approved Phase 2 of the refurbishment of University House, which will continue progress to a 'modern working environment' with greater flexibility than the old 'cellular' structure. (Those who thought 'cellular accommodation' was a term associated exclusively with the internal design of prisons and monasteries were enlightened.) The unhappiness of some staff with the 'glasshouse' or goldfish-bowl-style accommodation on B floor was noted, and Council was assured that some opaque walls would be retained. The only item to receive extended discussion was the report - to be presented to the next meeting of the University Court - on the impact of the introduction of student tuition fees. Given the short period for which information was available, it was not possible to say anything definite about trends, and members stressed that it was important to monitor the impact of fees over a longer period. It was agreed that this should be done, although the Working Party itself will be laid down. One effect of the introduction of fees may have been to increase the tendency for applications to be concentrated in the north-west, and it was noted that their effect on poorer parts of the region such as West Cumbria and East Lancashire should be a particular concern. ***************************************************** O TEMPORA, O MORES A subtext subscriber who was at Lancaster in the middle of the 1970s remembers a particularly packed Students' Union meeting held in Faraday Lecture Theatre. (Union meetings in those days regularly filled every seat in the place and the stairs as well, even though the student body was roughly 25% the size it is presently.) This particular meeting was convened to discuss a burning issue: should Robinson's, then as now the newsagent in Alexandra Square, sell what were usually known as 'top shelf magazines', such as Mayfair, Penthouse and Playboy? The debate was short and sharp, and the subsequent vote went overwhelmingly against the magazines. Robinson's ceased to sell them almost immediately. The same subscriber visited the University a couple of weeks ago and popped into Robinson's to pick up his Guardian. The sight that greeted him was, he says, depressing. 'I'm used to it in the High Street,' he said, 'but seeing about a dozen magazines with naked people on the cover in a University newsagent strikes me as both retrograde and sad. Doesn't anyone here mind?' A fair question. Does anyone? ***************************************************** SPINAL TAP ['Important Notice: Communications on the University's north and south spines may be monitored and reported to ensure the effective operation of democratic systems and for satirical purposes' (apologies to 'Message of The Day'). In an occasional column, we report on overheard conversations on the university's beloved byways.] After last Wednesday's post-graduate Graduation ceremony, several parents were heard discussing how their young children, who might normally have been expected to act up at the prospect of having to sit still and behave for a whole hour, had sat silent and open-mouthed through the whole ceremony. It was, apparently, 'just like Harry Potter'. A marketing opportunity here for the University, perhaps? ***************************************************** LETTERS Public arts Dear subtext I very much share the concern reported in subtext of 30 November regarding the 'The Public Arts', especially the Peter Scott Gallery. When attending one of this year's Lancaster International Concert Series events last month, I saw that the gallery, which always used to be open and well-patronised on these occasions in the past, was closed, and is now only open Monday to Friday, 11 - 4, due, as a sign on the door says, to 'budget cuts'. On the other hand, two (to my mind) quite gratuitous pieces of sculpture, plus attendant landscaping, have been put in place near Uni House, and the old erratic boulder, a wonderful piece of natural 'sculpture', removed, fate unknown. Not only is the boulder gone, but so has the cosy suntrap corner with it, and the benches that used to be there are now arranged in a naff-looking row near the Post Office. And the other sculpture looks uncannily like the proverbial head- burying ostrich - presumably not the symbolism intended, however inadvertently apt some might find it! One cannot help wondering whether there is a connection between the cost of this unhappy redevelopment work, which I assume is thought to have some kind of artistic connection, and the reduced gallery opening hours. And if so, I for one would have been quite content if, instead, there had been less redevelopment and the old gallery opening hours retained. Alan Waters, Linguistics **** Line breaks Dear subtext, Wow, the note about the line breaks [see subtext 30] was worthy of Gordon, he of blessed memory, and made me laugh. Thanks. Fiona Frank (DCE) (and new UCU treasurer) (and admirer in chief of Inkytext) **** Paper Dear subtext, Reading your article in the last issue (30) entitled 'Please do not Print' reminded me of my first ever employment in 1991, when some enlightened elders of the University (the three Johns: Whitelegg, Wakeford and another from Biological Sciences whose name I cannot recall, my apologies!) employed me and about seven other recent graduates to undertake an environmental audit of the University. I was charged with guesstimating the environmental impact of the University's paper use during this 6-week project paying £100 a week before tax (surely below the minimum wage!). I still have a copy of my report, printed out on the old-style print-out paper in the University's 'Computer Centre', with its side room where computer-literate types were communicating with other University students in real-time through an early manifestation of the WWW, called Janet if I remember rightly. I saved the report from the vaults of Independent Studies before it sadly disappeared. Before I spiral into more nostalgia: to the point. My report suggested that the best estimate I could make of annual paper use, taking into account paper plates from catering, envelopes and so forth, was somewhere in excess of the accounted-for 26,625,000 A4 80gsm sheets equivalent, or 53,659 reams of paper, weighing 133.88 tonnes. Multiplying this with the figures for the environmental impact of paper production that I had derived from Paper industry sources I summarised the environmental impact of the University's annual paper use as being in excess of: Energy: 134 tonnes of coal or 26,800 therms. As I said in my report at the time: 'To put the numbers into some perspective one should try to imagine what the Bailrigg campus, or any University site, might look like after the extraction of 134 tonnes of coal, five and a half million litres of water, and thirteen and a half tonnes of additives and chemicals', to which should also be added the loss of over 2,000 trees! At the time, 98% of this paper was land-filled, a figure that has hopefully been substantially reduced. In the audit, a total of 22,567 reams of A4 80gsm equivalent paper were accounted for as emerging from 'Stationery and Stores', the department that was responsible for ordering paper for general departmental use in 1991. If the comparable figure in 2007 is 33,400, we can perhaps multiply the impacts by another 50%: an additional 67 tonnes of coal, 2.25 million litres of water, 6.7 tonnes of additives and up to 1,000 trees annually. One of my recommendations at the time, aimed at reducing paper use, was the adoption of electronic mail as a replacement for issuing memos through the internal mail system. This now quaint looking idea appears to have had no impact on the level of per capita paper use! Noel Cass, Geography, LEC ***************************************************** The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Lenny Baer, George Green, Gavin Hyman, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Alan Whitaker. |