subtext

Home
Archive
Subscribe
Editors
Contact

 

 

 

 

 

subtext

issue 85

9 February 2012 

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

'Truth: lies open to all'

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

Every fortnight during term-time.

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.

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, China syndrome, reviews (Schubert and saxophones), more bpr, sports centre, facebook, covering up, deans-gate, straws and camels, letters

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

EDITORIAL

In our last issue we noted the positive feelings which the Vice-Chancellor has generated since his arrival. Nothing has happened since then to diminish this favourable impression. It's clear that he doesn't feel hamstrung by decisions taken before his arrival. In particular, and we mustn't get ahead of ourselves here, there is a strong sense that the much-maligned Business Process Review (BPR), which was discussed at some length in subtext 84, might not after all give rise to the kind of radical changes which rumour initially suggested.

This is all to the good; it is also the kind of atmosphere which might lure us into a kind of complacency - a feeling that cuts in administrative and support staff will inevitably be made, but they will not be as bad as we first feared and will therefore be somehow tolerable. There will be talk of 'difficult decisions', 'the current climate', 'rationalisation' and the need for economy, flexibility and realism.

subtext does not subscribe to this view. Even in 'the current climate', the loss of valued colleagues and the evisceration of departmental administrative structures, which the BPR still threatens, should not be allowed to happen without resistance. As we will continue to argue, criticism of the BPR will be informed by something a lot more powerful than (understandable) sentiment, or a refusal to countenance beneficial change. subtext has as yet seen no evidence which would lead anyone to imagine that the projected changes could be even remotely beneficial. As Napoleon was advised after a particularly egregious decision, 'It's worse than a crime: it's a mistake'.

Recent signs that the BPR might be (at best) watered down should make us more determined in advocating a cause which is so obviously right. While the unions are clearly well prepared for action against the cuts, every colleague can, if necessary, take complementary action at departmental level to deliver an unmistakable message. By threatening to make Lancaster less distinctive - by forcing us into the race to the bottom which other universities seem to have joined, at a time when student satisfaction is more important than ever - the BPR is a threat to everything that we have helped to build here. While welcoming the tone of Professor Smith's recent remarks, subtext has no intention of being lulled into complacency on this issue. Having aroused expectations that common sense might prevail after all, university managers would be very ill advised to push for a 'compromise' solution which continues to reflect the original rationale of the BPR.

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

NEWS IN BRIEF

College bars

In subtext 83 we reported that LUSU would be taking over the running of the college bars, and gave this development a qualified welcome, on the ground that LUSU must have some expertise in the profitable management of licensed premises. subtext has learned, however, that the bars will not now be going to LUSU. This volte-face seems to have been the result of difficulties in negotiations with HR over bar staff's terms and conditions of employment, but LUSU officers are reportedly quite relieved at not having to take responsibility for keeping nine bars open and making a profit - a tricky circle to square. Responsibility for the bars therefore remains with Mark Swindlehurst and Facilities, but we should not expect questions about opening hours and staffing levels to go away.

*******

Whistle-blowing

A new publication 'The Whistleblower' appeared last week, billing itself as 'Lancaster University's Only Independent Student Newspaper'. subtext always welcomes new voices, especially one which declares itself to be critical. We look forward with interest to seeing what identity the paper forges for itself over subsequent issues.

*******

China syndrome

For many subscribers of a certain age, it is still difficult to walk past a branch of Barclays Bank without feeling the need to shout 'Boycott!', due to that institution's unrepentant business links in the 1970s with what we then called 'the apartheid regime' in South Africa. At least one member of the subtext collective still refuses to eat shredded wheat on the grounds that it is made by the food giant Nestlé, whose activities in Africa were then, and arguably still are, widely deemed ethically dubious. There are other organisations, commercial and political, which some individuals still feel are unacceptable partners or donors for an HE institution. Unsurprisingly therefore, the morality and appropriateness of areas of Lancaster's involvement with the outside world - both academic and commercial, a distinction increasingly blurring - rears its head periodically; indeed one such episode, the George Fox 6 affair in 2004, was the spur to the founding of subtext.

Some subscribers, therefore, will have felt a familiar but long-suppressed pang upon reading about the University's plans to collaborate yet further with Guangdong University. (There was a rather good report in the week 7 issue of SCAN last term, if you haven't yet caught up with developments.) Let us say at once that we do not equate China with apartheid South Africa. That said, it is no secret that there is widespread disquiet in the West about China's authoritarian domestic policy in general, and its activities in Tibet in particular. This is not a party political issue; David Cameron raised the issue of human rights while in China on 9 November 2010, and the cases of dissidents such as the imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo and the artist Ai Weiwei have been widely publicised.

In fairness, SCAN reports Dennis Esch, LU International Students' Officer, as expressing some concerns about issues of academic freedom within what is a comparatively tightly regulated environment, and notes that the Chinese government reserves the right to set compulsory subjects of its own choosing in the degree foundation year. This right is acknowledged by the University, but the implications are apparently finessed away by the fact that the compulsory subjects 'will not be part of the degree we award' (Lancaster PVC Steve Bradley). Some might argue that this attitude approaches the disingenuous; it was news to the subtext collective that Lancaster University did not consider the foundation element of its degrees to be part of those degrees. Indeed, a good deal of time and effort is spent by Lancaster University to ensure that the foundation degrees run by Lancaster's other associated colleges (at Blackpool and so on) are exactly that. Like it or not, in the eyes of the world the Lancaster imprimatur is being given to these degrees and thus to these compulsory subjects, however much we may dismiss them as being outside our remit.

It would, we readily acknowledge, be ridiculously self-aggrandising for Lancaster University to suppose that it could persuade the Chinese government to liberalise its human rights policy, though it would be nice to think that we might try. It would be encouraging, however, to think that the one aspect of our relationship with Guangdong that we have some control over, the academic content of courses, would at least challenge - however covertly - the context imposed upon it. This may become more pressing in future years; the first courses are largely business-orientated, and thus perhaps less obviously controversial, but in time it is planned to offer Arts and Humanities degrees as well. One wonders, to pick an example at random, what compulsory modules the Chinese government might want to put on a Lancaster Foundation Degree in Criminology? Or in Politics? It is also perhaps time to ask the wider question again; what if anything do we, as an institution, regard as unacceptable practice? Are we morally neutral in these sorts of collaborations? Is there any government on the planet that the University would not do business with? Or, when supping with the devil, is it enough to point proudly to our long spoon?

 

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

REVIEW - Schubert's Octet, Great Hall

Of the octets in the chamber music repertoire - and there are not very many - the two that are widely acknowledged to be the most rewarding for players and popular with audiences were written within a year of each other. Schubert's octet for strings and wind was published in 1824 when he was 27 years old; the octet for strings by the 16-year-old Mendelssohn came in 1825. Both are masterpieces; yet it seems to have been a coincidence that they appeared, one in Vienna, the other in Berlin, at almost the same time.

Full of melody, the Schubert octet is a sunny piece that can be almost guaranteed to leave its audience cheerful, despite the lurking menace and drama that surfaces from time to time in the final movement. It was given a fine performance in the Great Hall on 26 January by the Manchester Camerata Ensemble, led by the young Venezuelan violinist Giovanni Guzzo. The demanding parts for all eight musicians were played not just with expertise, but also with evident enjoyment.

The first half of the programme included a quartet for strings and bassoon by Danzi, an enjoyable piece, and a new piece, Moment Translucent, by the Anglo-Moroccan composer Brahim Kerkour, who is the current composer-in-residence with Manchester Camerata. This work deconstructs a few bars of the Schubert octet. This process might be more interesting on further hearing, but it would be a tough intellectual process and it might not justify the effort.

Finally in the first half we heard a remarkable piece: Richard Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel, originally written for full symphony orchestra, arranged for five instruments. Strauss is renowned for his orchestration, so one might feel that arranging one of his large works for the apparently incongruous combination of violin, double-bass, French horn, clarinet and bassoon would be courting disaster; but the result was surprisingly effective. One could almost suspend disbelief and imagine the whole orchestra was in full flow.

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

REVIEW - Saxophone quartet, Great Hall

The following week's concert was again by a chamber group with a relationship with Manchester; but this was the only similarity. The Apollo Saxophone Quartet, spanning from soprano sax at the top down to bass sax at the bottom, was founded at the Royal Northern College of Music in 1985. Inevitably, there was a limited repertoire of music written for this combination, so the quartet has been very active in commissioning and composing new works and making new arrangements of existing ones, to the point where in those 25 years they have premiered over 100 new pieces. We heard several at the concert on 2 February - and not only heard: the group have composed a number of scores to be performed alongside old silent films, and three of these were included in their Great Hall concert. The music seemed highly appropriate to the on-screen visuals. What's more, the music finished almost exactly at the same moment the films did, which seemed a remarkable achievement.

The music performed in this concert was mostly rapid and highly virtuosic, both for the individual players and for the quartet as a whole. By the end, one began to long for something more lyrical. But this was a very stimulating evening.

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

MORE BPR

There is a UNITE petition in support of colleagues threatened by the Business Process Review. This is all to the good, but some will wonder if a petition will prove an effective way of opposing the BPR. A possibly more useful way will be discussion at Faculty PRCs. The Faculty of Science and Technology (FST) PRC meeting on 7 November was attended by the Programme Manager who outlined some of proposed changes. In response a number of points were made. In summary:

- It is unclear what evidence is driving these changes.

- FST (and no doubt other faculties) is complex: a single institutional model is unlikely to be appropriate.

- What is the role and status of those involved in the BPR project?  They may not be representative of faculty-wide interests.

- Centralisation of finance and marketing could impact on the volume of admin that has to be done by HoDs.

- It could be more appropriate to pilot changes in processes before implementing structural change.

- Is it sensible to plan for further changes to admissions so soon after the p/g admissions reorganisation?

- Has a thorough risk assessment been carried out as part of the BPR programme?

Answers to these questions would go a long way to making people feel that the process had been properly thought through.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, we understand that there are apparently no minutes or formal records of many BPR project meetings, and there is no feedback to members. While this may seem justified to those involved, a lack of minutes will be interpreted by many as a well-recognised means for the chiefs to get away with whatever they like whilst at the same time claiming that consultation has taken place. As Alistair Campbell once said, it doesn't matter what's actually going on; what matters is what it will look like from the outside. Rightly or wrongly, this looks suspect.

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

SPORTS CENTRE

We love the new Sports Centre and any problems we may have with it are quibbles. What does concern us a bit is the siting of the new traffic arrangements at the Centre entrance. This combines a new chicane-type traffic island, a 4-direction junction partly hidden by a rise in the road, decelerating buses, careering bikes, cars crossing the line of traffic in different directions, a pedestrian crossing without traffic lights carrying people many of whom are wearing headphones, and everything filtered together in a way that relies very heavily on all parties involved being wide awake at all times. The speed bump helps to slow down incoming traffic, which is a start, but we've seen two near-misses in the last week. We'd welcome opinion from users. Does anyone else think this is an accident waiting to happen?

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

FACEBOOK

Lancaster does not yet have a policy (or even guidelines, or, as far as we can make out, an opinion) on how staff should deal with Facebook. To mention the simplest example, should staff accept friend requests from students? Of course, most of the time this would be unproblematic, but equally obviously, it is the exceptions that will always be the problem.  Similarly, should staff be prepared to contribute to the Facebook pages that many students have set up to enable them to work together and share resources? Students take this sort of thing for granted and are puzzled by reluctance. There are a number of other similar connected questions. We understand that other institutions (UCLAN for one) have already run into problems and are putting together guidelines to assist staff in these murky waters. Should Lancaster be following its usual policy of 'wait until something goes wrong before doing anything about it', or should we be doing something about it right now? Is this issue really something that can be ignored?

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

COVERING UP

Twenty years ago we had covered ways. It was possible to walk from Grizedale to County College without getting wet, apart from a brief interlude just before County steps, as if the builders had run out of materials just before the end of the job. Not so now. If it's raining and you're going to Alexandra Park, or to George Fox, or Infolab, or County (the ten yard dash has become a 50-metre one, nearer 150 metres for disabled folk) then you're going to get wet. If you're going to the Sports Centre you're going to get very wet indeed. Granted the Sport Centre is a long way away, but the County situation in particular seems a matter of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. Visitors on Open Days are usually willing to grant that we can't do much about the weather, but we could at least try to protect ourselves and those we hope to impress from the worst effects of it.

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

DEANS-GATE

Rumblings from FASS, where Tony McEnery is stepping down as Dean. A search committee is looking both inside and outside the University for possible candidates. A few greybeards have been heard mumbling into their gruel that back in the mists of about ten years ago, prospective Deans put themselves forward for election, they canvassed the Faculty, and they were voted for by those who they would represent. Nowadays it seems that they are found and appointed. subtext is entirely sure that the new arrangement is performed in good faith, and it is doubtless much less cumbersome and awkward and altogether more managerial than some old-fashioned democratic muddle, but some are asking i) when it was decided to do things this way, ii) who took the decision, and iii) whether there is anything in the University constitution about such procedures.

All that aside, the advertisement in the Times Higher (3/2/12) for Prof McEnery's replacement has the following enigmatic wording: 'The role of Dean is offered for an initial five year period overlying an indefinite academic appointment'. subtext would like to believe that this means that the person chosen will be an academic and would return to being one after five years. However, words are so often weaselly. Can anyone clarify whether this will be, in effect, an additional academic appointment, albeit delayed? Or are we parachuting in a manager who will serve for five years and then leave for greener pastures?

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

STRAWS AND CAMELS

Students are to be lumbered with debt, for better or worse. As so often, it's the small things that really niggle. For example, the machines for photocopying in the library. The charge is 10p per copy. We don't know what profit the University makes on this, but we do know that the resentment it causes is substantial. Students would naturally like it to be free ('We're paying £9K, isn't that enough?'), and, while that isn't going to happen, the price would be a lot easier to justify if, for example, it was somewhere near break even. Expect more on this.

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

LETTERS

Dear subtext, 

I have read with interest your recent piece on the business process review. I fear that the proposals to centralise university administration could be disastrous on two levels.

1. Student Satisfaction: Lancaster is currently rated very highly for student satisfaction and I believe that some of this is due to dedicated administrative staff based in our departments. See June Coulson, Departmental Secretary in Psychology who has been awarded an MBE for her services to education in the new year's honours list.

2. Research Output: Lancaster has an international standing for high quality research and I believe strong administrative backing makes this possible. The practicalities and organisation of large research trials are often forgotten. The extra burden that we suspect will be given to academics, already juggling multiple demands, will make it extremely difficult to continue the same level of output. 

Best Wishes,

Todd Nicholas

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

The editorial collective of subtext currently consists (in alphabetical order) of: Rachel Cooper (PPR), Mark Garnett, George Green, David Smith, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Martin Widden.

Home | Archive | Subscribe | Editors | Contact