Category Archives: news

LANCASTER GOES TO LEIPZIG

A campus in Leipzig, then! What’s going on there? Let’s start with the official announcement:

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/lancaster-announces-new-campus-in-leipzig-germany-1

The person sat next to the Vice-Chancellor, signing the agreement on behalf of private education provider Navitas, is Paul Lovegrove, former director of Study Group International (SGI). Study Group has run Lancaster’s International Study Centre since 2007 (see subtext 17) and has a presence on many campuses, notably at Lincoln, where Mr Lovegrove worked closely with Andrew Atherton, once Senior Deputy VC at Lincoln and latterly Deputy VC of this parish.

Mr Lovegrove first came to subtext’s attention in June 2014, when in a Senate newsflash, we outlined SGI’s plan to deliver Part I modules here: ‘fag packet rumours echoing around the subtext warehouse suggest that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor has already given the green light for SGI to recruit to their Part 1 Lancaster study programme (intended to be drawn up in close consultation with relevant departments), and SGI are gearing up to launch this as an addition to their product offering…’

As we reported in subtext 121, senators were not amused, and ‘speaker after speaker exposed the flaws in the proposal.’ Joe Thornberry, then Principal of Bowland, noted that ‘if Senate agreed to this now it would be the crossing of a very important line, with consequences that had the potential to damage seriously the university’s reputation.’ The proposal was withdrawn.

Five years later, Mr Lovegrove is back and he’ll be helping to lead an entire campus on our behalf, as CEO of Navitas’s University Pathways in Europe. We trust that our senators fully scrutinised the tender process. Navitas will be responsible for administrative staff, support services, student recruitment and a foundation year, with Lancaster staff teaching the degree programmes.

Fingers crossed

STUDENTS’ UNION HUSTINGS – A REPORT

Scene: County South Lecture Theatre, Thursday 28 February, 7pm onwards, set out cabaret style.

Audience: probably just short of 100 people, though this fluctuated a lot.

Lighting: usually this was on ‘low’, except for the several moments when (we think some of the audience were leaning on the light switches) things changed to ‘unbearably full on’ or ‘off’.

Rules: candidates would get two minutes to speak, followed by questions from the audience, when they’d have just 30 seconds to answer each query. Finally, the ‘debate’, where they’d get to ask each other questions.

After the inevitable delay, things started at 7:25pm, with the undercard. As well as electing the six full-time officers, the students’ union will also be holding by-elections next week for four part-time officer positions: Black and Minority Ethnic, LGBTQ+, Students with Disabilities and International Students. The most notable part of these husts for part-time roles, especially given some of the positions up for grabs, was the subject not mentioned – last term’s snowsports society affair. The subject would be raised more than once before the end of the night.

***

First up for the full-time officer positions were the candidates for Vice-President Activities – the post responsible for overseeing student sports and societies. Traditionally a hotly contested role, this year only two candidates – Ben Evans and Cameron Jones – duked it out.

Evans gave a lucid, no-nonsense speech clearly outlining his experience and his ambitions. Having played for men’s rugby, and served on both the Roses Committee and County JCR Exec, Ben pledged to support mental health initiatives within sports, and identified numerous ways of improving intercollegiate sporting competitions such as the Carter Shield. He also identified timetabling issues which prohibited PostGrads from becoming involved in sports, and pledged an online calendar for sports practices and games.

Next was Cameron Jones – the Swimming Captain – whose emphasis was on recruiting more ‘top-level’ athletes for various sports societies, which he aimed to do by taking advantage of the recent addition of Sports Science to Lancaster’s degree offerings.

Hands shot up. A question was asked about gender-neutral changing rooms for trans students at the sports centre. Jones recognised how difficult it’d be to implement this, given that the sports centre is not run by LUSU. Evans was similarly sceptical but noted that the impending extension of the Sports Centre might provide an opportunity to lobby for such changes. Two perfectly grounded, realistic responses, which nonetheless led to a smattering of students taking to Twitter to denounce both candidates for hate speech.

Both candidates were asked how they planned to improve engagement with under-represented sports – Evans favoured more comms limelight and highlighting the achievements of under-represented groups, such as women’s rugby opening this year’s Roses. Jones favoured tailored campaigns to recruit for under-represented sports, citing #ThisGirlCan – a campaign to promote women’s sports – as an example. The candidates also quizzed each other – Jones asked Evans how he planned to achieve the Bingo-Card ‘Wednesday Afternoons’ being free for all, while Evans asked Jones if his ‘elite athletes outreach’ policy was potentially alienated to people who were already members of various sports teams.

It was refreshing to hear from two evenly matched candidates who were knowledgeable of developments within the university, and how they could be taken advantage of to improve sports provision. However, NO MENTION OF SNOW SPORTS!

***

Vice-President Campaigns and Communications was next – a contentious one, given that the Students’ Union had tried to referendum the post out of existence only a couple of months ago. Presumably, then, we could expect tubthumping, prominent campaigners to show us why the role was vital. Err.

Terry Tucker, a Bailrigg FM presenter, was up first. The role of Campaigns & Communications Vice-President requires the postholder to oversee the operations of the student media – Bailrigg FM, SCAN, LA1 TV – and Tucker was able to demonstrate that he had been involved in them all for a long time (some more than others). Moving on to campaigns, he proposed campaigns to eliminate stigma and shame among the 35% of students with mental health problems, as well as to take on rent increases – both of which he feels are linked.

Lewis Marriott pledged transparency. So often a buzzword, transparency has been a real problem for LUSU in recent years, as their decision-making has grown more and more opaque since it abolished most of its democratic structures in 2016.

Citing his Social and Events experience on The County College’s JCR Executive, Marriott gave bog standard pledges to use big screens and promotional drives to promote student media. Tucker, meanwhile, favoured greater training for student media members from media professions. In his opinion, improving the skill set of members would lead to more awards for SCAN, Bailrigg FM, and LA1TV, ergo more prestige.

Neither candidate held back when invited to quiz each other. Tucker asked Marriott why he had only just got involved in student media, who responded that it just wasn’t well promoted enough. Marriott asked Tucker what he had achieved as Disabilities Officer to justify mentioning it – ‘within weeks I revived Students with Disabilities Forum, achieved quoracy, finally updated its terms of reference, and built solid foundations for future officers’ came the firm response.

Campaigns and Comms is a diverse role which attracts diverse manifestos – in this case, it is very much a marketing bod against a student media guy.

***

One of the candidates for Vice-President Education having (seemingly) withdrawn, three remained. One, Bogdan Angheluta, had excellent powers of oratory, including expert hand gestures, but his platform seemed a little thin to your subtext drones, consisting basically of ‘if it can be done in the Management School, it can be done anywhere.’ The other two, Valentina Piredda and Bee Morgan, had less rhetoric, but stronger policies. Neither hesitated to point out when they thought something wasn’t achievable and – therefore! – not in their manifestos. Valentina, the current Mature Students’ Officer, emphasised her knowledge of postgraduate and part-time students’ concerns, while Bee, a Natural Scientist, stressed her success in improving departmental representation for combined honours students.

The issue of lecture capture – and whether it should be compulsory – showcased the candidates’ different approaches. ‘I’m realistic,’ said Bee, noting that recording all lectures isn’t possible and pointing out that Lancaster’s current system of lecture capture isn’t that great anyway, often failing to capture either the lecture materials – especially if written on a whiteboard – or the lecturer (see subtext 141). Valentina supported making the practice more widespread but didn’t promise anything more. Bogdan insisted that it was possible to make capture compulsory, and cited the example of two lecturers – in the Management School, of course – who initially said ‘no’ but later changed their mind. So there.

***

Laurie Butler, one of the candidates for Vice-President Welfare & Community, easily wins the ‘innovation in poster design’ award here. No grinning visage. No colour. Minimalist style, e.g. just a big ‘equals’ sign to show his commitment to equality. The effect was akin to a poster advertising a new piece of radical theatre, rather than the usual ‘vote for me!’ style – indeed, the first time your reviewers saw Laurie’s posters, they made a mental note to check out the latest programme for the Nuffield Theatre. subtext fears this might be his downfall, however, since having large ‘vote for me!’ posters is generally a vital part of a candidate’s campaign.

Laurie’s hustings was, similarly, very different from that of his opponents, Sruthi Chilukoti and Grishma Bijukumar. Sruthi and Grishma’s speeches emphasised their strong welfare campaigns experience at Lancaster, while staying away from anything too contentious – Sruthi was particularly interested in training and support for societies’ welfare officers, while Grishma emphasised sexual health and bystander training. Laurie’s speech, while a lot less polished, and frequently veering closer to education campaigns rather than welfare, was explicitly political, supporting ‘participatory budgeting’ (students having a say in how the union’s money is spent), opposing the effects of Brexit, and campaigning to end the university’s investments in fossil fuels.

The most notable question concerned the snowsports society affair and its impact on our students. Grishma and Sruthi emphasised how important it was to listen to the students who’d been affected, while Laurie gave a passionate denunciation of the far right on campus: ‘we’ve fought you before, we’ll fight you again, and we’ll win!’

***

Hands down, Vice-President Union Development was the most entertaining hustings of the night, as two competent former JCR presidents, John Clayton and Richard Smith*, took on Hannah Prydderch, also a former JCR president, who introduced herself as ‘the Welsh one’ and proceeded to wipe the floor with both John and Richard. All three spoke of the need for JCR training and how to engage more students in union democracy, but Hannah did so with better slogans and more memorable promises. Hannah’s policies struck a progressive tone – notably, while John was equivocal on the union’s affiliation to the National Union of Students (NUS), and Richard openly endorsed a referendum on disaffiliation from the NUS, Hannah not only supported continued NUS affiliation but pointed out one of its key benefits – ‘making your drinks cheaper at sugar!’

And we haven’t mentioned Meegan Clark yet. Where to begin?

Meegan’s definitely a maverick. She has a distinctive style, coming out from behind the lectern and acting like she’s at an open mic night. During the ‘debate’ stage, where the candidates ask each other questions, she would have given The Sweeney a run for their money when it came to interview style. And if those pen pushers in University House give her any grief…

But when it comes to her policies, well, we tried our best, but there was nothing there. In a rather surreal stream of consciousness peppered with insults, just one sensible point stood out – no, it wasn’t a good idea to extend the election campaign period, given the amount of candidates’ time it took up and the fact that most candidates also had part-time jobs.

***

And so came the main event. In recent years, the race for President has been a drab affair. The former JCR President and the populist insurgents work to find out who can most convincingly promise to listen to students hardest… and whoever has the largest college wins.

County Democracy and Finance Officer* George Nuttall wanted to re-inspire faith in the union, introduce drug testing kits, address the black attainment gap, and introduce separate full time officers for sports and societies. Furness President Will Groarke wanted to improve visibility, crack down on neglectful landlords, and work on better bus pass deals for PG students. Two perfectly workmanlike candidates, we thought. And then Danny Mirza, a colourful character from Grad college, got up to speak.

There was little in the way of content in Mirza’s speech, but it was hard not to get swept up in his ‘Dr Nick from The Simpsons’ style, replete with singing and dancing. There was talk of grad jobs and buddy schemes. Your correspondents wondered if he could pull off an upset if he really worked the kitchens…

…until the candidates started questioning each other. In a lengthy diatribe that no doubt soured the room against him, Mirza attacked both candidates for having policies covering the remits of other officers – ignoring the policies that clearly didn’t, and seemingly advocating for the abolition of the post. Both candidates defended themselves well against this, skilfully swinging the room back in their favour and bringing Mirza’s waffle into sharp relief.

Questions from the floor were drab. A question about Israeli and Palestinian tensions was not well addressed by any of the candidates (the phrase ‘I will go and speak to the Jews’ found its way into one of Mirza’s answers…). All of the candidates stressed their fearlessness in confronting senior management – Danny is a Senator, George a University Councillor.

All in all, a traditional showing, with two strong collegiate candidates and an eccentric.

***

The event closed at 11pm. subtext would like to wish all the candidates well – for them the next two weeks will possibly be the most intense experience of their lives.

Contributed by Ronnie Rowlands and James Groves

* NOTE: Errors in the email version (we originally listed Richard Smith as Richard Clark, and George Nuttall as County President, rather than Democracy and Finance Officer) have been corrected in the web version.

FASCISTS

Worrying news reaches subtext of Generation Identity (GI) leaflets being left in the Learning Zone at the beginning of February. GI is very much the modern face of the European far-right, but behind its ‘lambda’ logo and black-and-yellow colour scheme lurks the same old evil. Its main aim, as it proudly states, is to stop and reverse the process by which ‘the indigenous European population is replaced by non-European migrants.’

We urge any subtext readers finding GI material on campus to hand it in to the University Safety Office.

WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT, THEN?

Once in a while something amazing happens. The University decides to engage with its Professional Services (PS) staff (albeit mainly those located in the Faculties) about their working lives in a way that’s pretty good: a huge consultative exercise about how things can be made better, a listening exercise where participants feel heard and valued.

Then, at the point when the results have been taken on board and digested, somehow everything collapses into a black hole of management-speak and vague promises.

Such has been the Faculty Professional Services Project (FPSP, acronym fans!). For nearly two years this wide-ranging project covered everything from the student experience, through the support needs of staff supporting research projects, to career progression, and culminated in a presentation to PS staff on 29 January 2019.

Starting promisingly with refreshments, the next hour consisted of senior management and faculty managers presenting the results of the project. Things will be done, we were told. Some things were already being done, but the work is very complex. Some of the recommendations of the project already align with some other things that are happening. Some stuff has been found to work well in one area of the University and can be rolled-out to other areas. And, of course, due to lack of resources, we would have to find ‘creative’ ways of doing things.

This blandness was underscored by the visuals: the screen behind the speakers played headshots of all the project contributors on a perpetual loop. Whilst this gave a nice warm glow initially – oh, it’s so-and-so from that Department! – after ten minutes it had a dizzying, almost hypnotic effect. As a result your subtext drones confess that they found it pretty hard to stay focused, and had to resort to trawling the official news sources to conjure up this description of events:

‘Almost two years after the project started, the project has resulted in many improvements at our University, including:

– A new microsite designed to help you develop your skills and plan your career at Lancaster;
– A new submissions and feedback portal for student assessments (cf. this issue’s editorial);
– Stronger links between student wellbeing support services and a proposal for a case management system;
– A new combined office model for student administration;
– The collaborative approach of the project resulting in changes to the way many of the participants work.’

Towards the end of the hour, your subtext drones were jolted out of their light trance by the announcement from Paul Boustead that PS staff were unlikely to ever have parity with academic staff. Whilst that’s probably not news to most University staff, it’s a pretty bald statement from the Head of HR. Shortly afterwards the ‘loop-of-faces’ was broken by a screenshot of a soon-to-be-launched ‘Career Management’ portal. This will be a one-stop shop for PS staff looking for career support, including advice, coaching, information on ‘job families’ and secondment opportunities. There then followed a bit of a pre-emptive telling-off: if we offer secondment opportunities, you have to take them. Little recognition there for staff on fixed term contracts, nor much consolation for staff who want to stay in their current roles, but actually get a level of pay that reflects the work they actually do.

The Q&A session at the end revealed further concerns about job families, the approach to the combined office for student administration, and a fleeting mention of the gender pay gap (although two questions on this submitted via iLancaster were ignored).

In short – whilst all the presenters acknowledged that the project was one of the best pieces of staff engagement the University has achieved, the event itself was a wasted opportunity to build on the goodwill generated amongst Faculty Professional Services staff during the project, and limped towards a self-congratulatory, well-meaning, ‘we’re on it’ piece of backslapping. The following comment, overheard at the end of the presentation, pretty much sums up the experience: ‘What was that all about, then?’

You can see the full video of the event here [staffwall]:

https://dtu-panopto.lancs.ac.uk/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=0a8ca9b3-9803-4267-b8fc-a9dd00921749

Final reports from the project are here [staffwall]:

http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/fpsp/

NO ONE’S WATCHING

Fancy learning Chinese calligraphy? How about Tai Chi? Perhaps you’d like to pick up touch rugby? And were you aware that Adam Taylor of Lancaster Medical School is to receive the Basmajian Award from the American Association of Anatomists?

For these and similar public information messages, just sit in an empty lecture theatre where, thanks to a new initiative from ISS, you will experience a constant diet of news, views and adverts, whenever there are no lectures scheduled, whether you want to or not. The Confucius Institute seems to be responsible for a high proportion of the messages on display, along with Lancashire Fire & Rescue and the Students’ Union.

Well, why not? It beats just staring at a blue screen showing the time. subtext found the experience slightly mesmerising, although we’re not sure how many students will share our fascination.

Just make sure you keep your kitchen clean, though

‘BUILD A BONFIRE, BUILD A BONFIRE…’ (PROVIDED YOU’VE COMPLETED A RISK ASSESSMENT FIRST)

Having said that there’s nothing interesting to be found in Senate agenda papers, we’ll immediately contradict ourselves by examining the proposed Revised Code of Practice on Protests, discussed by the Senate this week. Drafted by the Director of Strategic Planning and Governance, someone who certainly knows how to mediate at a protest (see our Court report from subtext 172), it’s due to come into force today, 1 February.

What will an official protest now look like? Let’s imagine you’re unhappy because you’ve discovered that someone you really don’t like is coming to campus in a few months time, and you’d like to organise a demonstration…

– Obviously you’ll need approval from a designated University officer.

– You need to appoint one (just one!) of your number as the principal organiser of the demo, who’ll take responsibility if things kick off. Nothing too scary – just be aware that failing to follow the rules could lead to ‘being subject to action under the relevant disciplinary regulations and, in serious cases, potential legal action.’

– It goes without saying that you’re going to need to submit a risk assessment. This will involve ‘responding to the reasonable requests of the Responsible Officer’ as well as providing details about the nature and theme of the event, including how you plan to use banners and megaphones, what route you’ll be taking and whether there’ll be any external speakers.

– We need to ensure your protest doesn’t cause any disruption! Nothing too onerous – we’d just like you to guarantee that students, staff and visitors can still move around freely, making sure events can continue unhindered and uninterrupted, ‘including excessive noise in or intruding into buildings.’

– In return, the university will endeavour to ensure the protest can go ahead, unless it would be unsafe (fair enough), be illegal (also fair enough), ‘present an unacceptable disruption to business’ (not so sure about that) or cost too much (definitely not sure about that!).

– Oh, and we need a week’s notice, in writing. Is that OK?

Will the new system be a success? Campus demo organisers are encouraged to share their experiences with subtext at the usual address.

GET THE VOTE OUT… AGAIN

The University and College Union is yet again balloting its members over industrial action – not over pensions this time, but rather over casualisation, workload, pay inequality, and… well, pay. Union members are said to be scratching their heads as they walk around campus in a daze (that’s just the standard academic habitus, mind you), wondering whether they hadn’t already done one of these about six months ago. And indeed they did – but only a small handful of institutions reached the magic 50% figure imposed by recent trade union legislation, so there really wasn’t much of a solid platform for industrial action. This time, after some ill-tempered shouting (or should that be well-reasoned debate?) at a national union conference, UCU has gone for an aggregated ballot, which means that all branches are lumped together and the 50% threshold must be reached across the board.

Opinion seems divided on whether this will succeed – on the one hand, the last, ill-fated ballot still achieved the highest turnout of any ballot over a national pay & conditions negotiation ever. On the other, there is nothing like the sense of unity and anger that surrounded the pensions dispute. Is this a case of people only voting when their own interests are at stake?

NOT THE COURT REPORT

Every year, subtext used to report on University Court – the closest thing Lancaster had to an AGM, with students, staff, graduates and local bigwigs in attendance. Sadly (see subtexts 172 and 176), our Court is no more, but in its place we were promised an annual public meeting, where anyone could come along, listen to senior officers and ask questions – as long as they didn’t refer to anything COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE, of course. It would have no formal status, but that could allow new and innovative formats and timings.

So… when can we expect our first annual public meeting? It’s now been a year since the final Court and a ‘date for your diary’ could have been announced by now, surely? The last mention subtext can find in university minutes comes from UMAG in September, when the annual meeting was definitely ‘on’, but it’s not listed in the current timetable of meetings for 2018/19.

Will it ever happen? Any information will be gratefully received.

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE

The practice, widespread across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, of making unconditional offers to applicants for undergraduate degrees is attracting the displeasure of ministers, VCs and, potentially, the new Office for Students (OfS). Sam Gyimah MP, Minister of State for Universities until he became a Brexit casualty on 30 November, described them on 26 July as ‘completely irresponsible’ and called on the OfS to take action. The VCs at Brunel, Buckingham, Chichester, Hertfordshire, King’s College London and the West of England led the signatories to a letter in the Times on 20 November, regretting that the practice was ‘detrimental to the longer-term interests of students, skews university choices and reduces the motivation and quality of sixth-form life in schools.’ Signatories particularly disliked so-called ‘unconditional if firm’ offers, also called ‘conditional unconditional’ offers, where universities put students under pressure by dangling an unconditional offer in front of them… but only if they pick that university as their firm choice, not their insurance choice.

Lancaster is unlikely to sign up to such sentiments – because business is booming in ‘unconditional if firm’ offers here! For some of our departments, the overwhelming majority of offers are now ‘unconditional if firm’, and as our admissions team will doubtless point out, they seem to work, especially when it comes to persuading applicants to choose us in preference to a close rival.

This competitive advantage only works if we’re doing it and our competitors are not, of course, and UCAS’s 2018 end-of-cycle report, published on 29 November, suggests that we’re fast approaching a no-score draw:

https://www.ucas.com/data-and-analysis/undergraduate-statistics-and-reports/ucas-undergraduate-end-cycle-reports/2018-end-cycle-report

It seems that 14% of offers made for 2018 entry were unconditional, this being made up of 7.1% genuinely unconditional offers and 6.9% ‘unconditional if firm’ offers. Overall, 34.4% of applicants received at least one unconditional offer last year. In a conclusion due to be filed alongside that technical report on ‘things bears do in the woods’, UCAS has found that ‘applicants who hold an unconditional offer as their firm choice are more likely to miss their predicted A level grades by 2 or more points, compared to those who are holding a conditional offer as their firm choice.’

It pains subtext that Lancaster is one of the pioneers of this coercive approach to recruitment; but it seems likely that we won’t be allowed to do it for much longer anyway. Last year, Swansea University published the following statement on its website, aimed at its 2018 applicants, and we really couldn’t have put it better ourselves:

‘Universities typically indicate that they are making an unconditional offer because they have been favourably impressed with the candidate’s application. As flattering as it can be to receive such an offer, we would suggest that you consider why a University is behaving in this way. In this situation you are being invited to enroll on a degree programme without having to demonstrate prior achievement or a relevant base of subject knowledge. This says quite a lot about the University and their lack of confidence in being able to attract strong students.’

Miaow! This statement is no longer on Swansea’s website – we wonder why?! – but is still available via the magic of the Google cache.

APOLOGIES FOR DISRUPTING YOUR SERVICE, WE WERE SAVING LIVES

The ‘Stansted 15’, a group of peaceful protesters who include former LUSU President Laura Clayson, have been found guilty by a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court under the little-used Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 of disrupting the services of an aerodrome, ‘in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.’ Sentencing has been set for the week commencing 4 February and the maximum sentence is imprisonment for life.

As reported in subtext 181, and expanded on by Chris Witter (see letters, below), their ‘crime’ was to disrupt the deportation of undocumented immigrants, many of whom may face persecution or worse in their countries of origin, via charter flights. Thanks to their intervention, 11 people who would have been deported are still in the UK, challenging their withdrawal. The legislation used to prosecute the Stansted 15 was drafted to protect civil aviation in the UK from terrorists, but – unless the group wins their appeal – could now be used more widely to suppress non-violent protest.

This week’s Lancaster Guardian carries an interview with Laura Clayson, who claims that the 15 ‘are guilty of nothing more than intervening to prevent harm’:

https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/history-will-vindicate-us-says-ex-lancaster-uni-student-found-guilty-of-terror-charges-1-9490992

A demonstration, to ‘Stand with the #Stansted15 for International Migrants Day’, is planned for Tuesday 18 December in Lancaster. Details at:

https://www.facebook.com/events/308318683356062/

REFEREN-DUM

In case you missed it… the result of the Students’ Union’s referendum to change its full-time officer team (see subtext 182) has been announced, and it shows a decisive victory for the ‘don’t care!’ campaign. On a 6% turnout of 892 votes, the votes were: Yes 438 (49%), No 396 (44%) and Abstain 58 (7%). As the union notes, ‘students’ union rules on referendums state that a voter turnout of at least 10% is required in order for decisions to be upheld, and therefore the proposal did not pass’:

https://lancastersu.co.uk/articles/result-of-the-big-vote-referendum

The referendum voting website was kept separate from the sites to vote for JCR executives, with different closing dates. Did the union executive miss a trick by not bundling the votes together? The County College had a turnout of almost 30% for its JCR elections, with Furness and Grizedale Colleges not too far behind, so it seems so – although given the large ‘No’ vote amongst the few who did turn out, it’s distinctly possible that the proposals would have been rejected anyway.

subtext was unenthusiastic about the proposals, particularly the idea of establishing a full-time Postgraduate Officer who would be elected by a majority undergraduate electorate, but this doesn’t seem to be the main issue that galvanised the lively ‘No’ campaign: ‘Do you want more support for Sugarhouse? Vote NO’ claimed its Facebook page. The proposed loss of the Vice-President Union Development – which is what the strapline was referring to – certainly did not go down well with JCR officers, who queued up to oppose the changes.

Will the proposals return next term? Even if they did, presumably any change would come too late to change the full-time officers for 2019-20, so it seems likely they’ll be rapidly booted into the very long grass.

SHOP IN PROGRESS

The former UniTravel on Alexandra Square is now occupied by ‘Work in Progress’. Who they? At first glance, subtext was reminded of ‘brand consultants’ Perfect Curve from the BBC’s W1A. We’ve got friendly big words – ‘Ideas’, ‘People’ – not many desks, and plenty of Post-Its. Was this an art installation?

No. It turns out that University House has had a good idea, and allowed the Research and Enterprise Services team to use the vacant unit for the next few years, as its one-stop shop for students and staff seeking to develop ideas for partnerships and other collaborations with industry. Anyone is welcome to pop in over lunchtime, or book the space:

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/enterprisecentre/

It’s part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund, so who knows how long it’ll be here, but while it is, it seems to be worth supporting.

DEMO REPORT FROM ALEX SQUARE

White t-shirts have been popping up everywhere in recent times. But a group of around 40 protestors who assembled on Alexandra Square Wednesday lunchtime showed that it’s possible to wear a white t-shirt with writing on it that does not consist of ‘jokes’ about killing or raping people.

The student-led protest, with a little logistical support from the National Education Union and UCU, featured students and staff alike sharing their views on the hate speech, racism, sexism and other isms that seem to have reared their ugly heads not only at Lancaster but throughout the country.

There were numerous and varied critiques of the University and Students’ Union’s actions and inactions, urgent appeals to action, and powerful testimony about personal experiences of hate speech, hate crime, and other attacks and harassment.

While a small group of students with hoodies and partially covered faces standing off to the side made some spectators wonder whether there was a confrontation brewing, this turned out to only be the Roleplaying Society, who were meeting on the Alexandra Square steps and felt a bit cold.

The take-away message from the demo: no justice, no peace… and do something!

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT UPDATE

A petition has been launched against the fees charged to non-EEA citizens working at Lancaster, and the University’s (in)activity in helping those who have to pay them. Supporters note that, whilst some universities fully cover these costs, Lancaster’s loan scheme fails to cover all relevant expenses and must be repaid quickly. Staff at other universities have successfully persuaded their institutions to change their policies on non-EEA staff, and this campaign seeks to put similar pressure on Lancaster. A subtext reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, writes:

‘While the university talks about work-life balance, and gauges performance based on the enforced Staff Survey, this is one that slips under the cracks. Interestingly, this situation leads to rather uncomfortable decisions made by staff which would be unpalatable to staff not in the same situation. Decisions like putting off having a child for another 6-12 months so that they wouldn’t have to pay for the child’s visa fees irrespective of how loudly their biological clocks are ticking away. Frankly, the mood is sombre. No one expects the university will support individuals in any form and there’s quiet acceptance of the fact that early career staff end up with an effective take-home wage lower than their PhD students’ bursaries because of these costs directly associated with employment.’

You can find the petition at:

https://www.change.org/p/allstaff-lancaster-ac-uk-stop-discriminating-policies-at-lancaster-university-that-leave-non-eea-staff-in-debt

More information can be found here:

https://lancsinternational.home.blog/

subtext 182 – ‘better late than ever’

Every so often during term time.

Letters, contributions, & comments: subtext-editors@lancaster.ac.uk

Back issues & subscription details: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/subtext/about/

In this issue: editorial, staff survey, unions, lusu, fascists, academies, musicians’ co-op, all workers are men, fire, offshoring, buses, widden, eating, letters.

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

EDITORIAL

In days gone by vice-chancellors used to boast about how many cranes their campus featured (see subtext 9). These days, their prevailing rally cry seems to be ‘It’s definitely not us’, as they rush to reassure their students, staff and other interested parties that they are not one of the three universities that is close to bankruptcy – perhaps because of the very cranes, and associated building projects.

Of the universities in the North West, one of which is allegedly in this unfortunate position, Bolton’s VC George E Holmes was quick off the mark to let people know how healthy his, er, his university’s finances were via the media, while our very own Mark E Smith (readers may wonder whether a middle name beginning with an ‘E’ is a prerequisite to be VC of a North-Western uni) chose to share the good news that it is someone else in his recent all-staff meeting. No doubt other VCs will follow, though there has thus far been a conspicuous silence from the University of Cumbria, which has been running at a loss according to the most recent set of accounts available on its website, and whose financial woes were highlighted by The Guardian as long ago as January (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/30/fears-university-closures-office-for-students).

Among all these denials of bad fortune, there seem to be few VCs willing to stick their necks out and talk about what a colossally stupid idea it is to run universities as if they were part of a market, and treat education as a tradeable commodity like cheese. If a university were allowed to close because of bankruptcy, a number of media sources have pointed out this would have a huge impact not only on current students, but would also lead to hundreds if not thousands of job losses, and – for universities in smaller towns or cities – could devastate the local economy. The tarnished reputation of degrees from a failed university may also impact on the government’s favourite indicator of HE success, namely employability. While it seems unlikely that the university sector will somehow reverse the relentless onslaught of marketisation, perhaps one or more bankruptcies and the subsequent mess may be just the wake-up call we need to change course. Just as long as it’s definitely not us!

UCU SAY NO WAY SURVEY

The 2018 staff survey is now live. This has been covered by subtext already (see subtext 178 for example) but the real excitement for us this month is whether UCU’s call for a boycott will gain any traction. After all, our staff traditionally take the path of least resistance with the biennial survey and ‘just do it’. It can’t hurt, can it? Presumably the university takes our comments on board.

A look at the current staff survey results page at:

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/current-staff/staff-survey-results/

is not very encouraging, opening as it does with ‘the results are in for the Lancaster University Staff Survey 2014,’ and linking to Capita’s report from January 2015. Turnout – 63%. Hm, can we find any record of the 2016 exercise anywhere? After a bit of work, we found it on Box. Turnout – 73%.

Rather like the National Student Survey, staff surveys consist of statements to which we can ‘agree’, ‘tend to agree’, ‘tend to disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Responses in 2016 were generally ‘positive’, although subtext wonders whether it is really so positive that 26% agreed with ‘relationships at work are strained’, while 36% disagreed with ‘I feel fairly rewarded for the work I do.’

Whatever their misgivings, UCU has actively participated – as HR is keen to remind people – in the Staff Survey Planning Group all year, so why the boycott now? According to the email sent to Lancaster UCU members by the branch Vice-Chair, UCU ‘sought to engage with the management response to the last survey, but this was not made possible for us to do in a meaningful way. […] A questionnaire-based staff survey could conceivably be used to support collegiate workplace improvement, but the current approach does not lend itself to doing this.’

Specifically, UCU feels, benchmarking our results against other institutions is flawed, because management will think, ‘if we do not get worse result than the rest of the sector, then all is fine,’ and benchmarking requires standardised questions which ‘severely limits what we can say freely due to the lack of open-ended questions and what we can learn about local conditions.’ Benchmarking also relies on using Capita, and LUCU ‘has ongoing concerns about relying on Capita, given their track record.’

Improvements to the staff experience due to the 2016 survey do seem to be rather limited. On the 2018 staff survey site, examples given are a revamp of the Employee Assistance Programme, more flexible benefits, a ‘clearer PDR process’ (ahem! – see subtext 153) and, thanks to the faculty professional services project, creating ‘a more positive environment for thinking and talking about change which, in turn, has created a more positive platform for change.’ Feedback from those for whom ‘change’ meant ‘P45’ does not seem to have been highlighted.

Will the UCU boycott have an effect? If it reduces the turnout compared with 2016 then, just maybe, the university might consider something different for 2020. Or maybe not.

UNION SILO BLUES

Every year the five main UK Higher Education unions (including the three recognised at Lancaster University) haggle and bargain over pay rates for staff in the sector with the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA, acronym fans!).

This year the unions’ joint claim was for an increase of 7.5% or £1500 (FTE) whichever is higher, and a minimum wage of £10 per hour, plus demands around the gender pay gap and precarious contracts. Full details here: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/9311/UCUBANHE29/pdf/HE_Pay_claim_submitted.pdf

UCEA’s final offer was a pay increase of 2% or £425 (FTE), whichever is higher, alongside promises to tackle the gender pay gap and casualisation issues at a sector level. Full details here: https://www.ucea.ac.uk/download.cfm/docid/CD07D3D7-EBCE-4027-9FB2DF4F48C39D6E

Unsurprisingly, most of the unions rejected the UCEA offer, and both Unison and UCU decided to ballot their members about taking industrial action.

Now. Given that there has to be co-ordination and communication at a national level to do this, and given that UCU have recently taken successful industrial action over pensions (that arguably only really affected the highest paid staff) and given that the gender pay gap at Lancaster University is the third worst in the country, and… well, you’d think that there would also be a level of joined-upness locally…

Erm, well, no. UCU and Unison ballots went ahead at Lancaster University simultaneously, with the left hand not knowing what the… left hand was doing. Just think what a little joined up thinking and campaigning could have achieved.

On a national level, despite a high turnout from UCU members, very few institutions met the 50% turnout legal requirement. Lancaster hit 44.9%, though among those members who did return their ballots, 69.7% supported strike action and 80.7% action short of a strike. In Unison, an ‘overwhelming majority’ of HE members voted to take strike action, but unfortunately that tricky 50% turnout threshold was once again not reached.

Our subtext drones made discreet enquiries amongst professional services colleagues to see if we could get a comment from a Unison member, but everyone had their heads down. In the end we asked the branch contact for a few words:

‘The Lancaster University Unison branch has been dormant for quite some time, and there’s currently just me and one other volunteer who are trying to get things up and running again. We didn’t have members’ contact details to try and organise any meetings around the pay offer. It would have been really good to know that UCU were also balloting, maybe hold some joint meetings, share information and campaign together about this.’

On the other hand, we just had to lob a brick out of the warehouse window to hit a UCU member who was prepared to comment:

‘On this occasion it looks like Lancaster UCU missed an opportunity to collaborate with Unison. There are numerous issues on which we already do work together with our sister unions, and we will try to continue to stand up for all University staff by standing together with Unison and Unite.’

Given the current state of affairs in the subtext warehouse (see subtext 181 editorial) we totally recommend being in a union, but please give your branch officers a prod to talk to the other ones!