Hello,
My previous post has garnered some feedback. Here are some thoughts on the points raised.
Firstly, I should acknowledge that my post on 'Thoughts on Protesting' was influenced too much by my own feelings. The fact is that I was considerably irritated at having my class disrupted and wished to vent it. As Mademoiselle has pointed out to me, protest of this kind only really works if it is disruptive to normal practice.
The second point was raised by Abacus of Cockmarsh, who questioned why we have tuition fees at all. Abacus has considerably more financial knowledge than me. Privately he has questioned whether or not the fees system in this country amounts to a PFI scheme, in the sense that the debt is transferred from the current generation onto the next.
So, my responses:
As I've said, I agree with Mademoiselle that my previous post was too much coloured by my own irritation and annoyance. Nevertheless I would hold by several points that I made there. The attacks upon the royal car, and the posting of dog excrement through Nick Clegg's letterbox go beyond what is acceptable, in my view, in that they attack directly and indirectly people who have no responsibility for the tuition fees question. I would argue that successful protests are normally focussed on the one particular weakness rather than a broad blast against an enemy.
On the question of tuition fees in general, I defer to the more knowledgeable man about their effectiveness. The fact is though that they are here to stay unless something drastic happens. I think my views on a rise in fees have been best outlined elsewhere.
I concur with the above comments regarding the nature of protesting. You are right, the attacks on the two oaps were attacks not protests and extremely childish. I'm angry myself with the government's decision, but I believe there has to be a more constructive and indeed cathartic means in which to channel this anger in a more mature manner. The occupation of the lecture building in Peter Chalk is a lot more tolerant and is likely to have more effect and indeed to be taken more seriously.
ReplyDeleteI of course understand the economic climate and that education requires capital, however I protest for two reasons: firstly because if I was an undergraduate now there would probably be no possibility of me being able to afford the education that got me to where I am now as a second year PhD student, and secondly because I enjoy teaching students from a wider demographic. I know that this demographic will always be stipulated by economic growth (but so does nearly everything) but with these cuts, teaching groups will lose this diversity which is one of (if not the) most enriching part of university education.
To put it bluntly, it'll just be a bit boring teaching a room full of rich undergraduates.
K,
ReplyDeleteOn reflect I feel I would agree with you as to the negative aspects of the new fees system. This very well may be exacerbated by the year-long gap between the cuts being made in university financing (2011) and the introduction of the new fees system (2012). Quite frankly I can see the beginning of 'opting-out' of university education coming in that year. They may still be paying the old fees, but the standard of teaching will inevitably drop.
However, and I say this wearily, I simply don't see what will change by these protests. Abacus has suggested that this new fees system amounts to the transfer of debt onto future generations rather than the present, and I am inclined to believe that he may have a point. The Government, and the major universities, however seem entirely bent upon the current plan.
Which leads me to the question of protests. Upon encountering the occupation of Peter Chalk (had a lecture there the Wednesday of last week), I revised my opinion and actually found myself rather charmed by it all. Still the question is what exactly will it achieve. Forgive my cynicism but I honestly can't see altering matters in the slightest. The university will not change its support of the new fees system. It sees it, as far as I can tell, as necessary for its survival as a notable research-based university of international standing. Any occupation of any building in Streatham, St. Luke's or at Tremough will be temporary. This change is permanent and as the University administration seems to see it, vital.
The problem with the London protests is that they sucked the necessary oxygen of publicity away from the actual PR problem the NUS has - that not enough voters sympathise with the aims of the protesters. I would attempt a prolonged campaign aimed not at protesting the move, per se, but showing the voting, and tax-paying, public what will happen if this programme goes ahead. At the University itself, I think the only protest that would work would be something along the lines of the prolonged sit-ins used by the Civil Rights campaigners in the American south during the 1960s. We need to demand better publicised access to the University's accounts too, as well as working hard on the sort of endowment and alumni-giving schemes that they have in the United States. I note (from Wikipedia) that the University's endowment in £18.1 million and it has c. 15,000 students. Rice University in the USA has under 6,000 students, and an endowment of £3.6 billion.
(N.B: I didn't do much research into this, so I'm not sure that Exeter and Rice U are exactly compatible. However given Exeter's links with the Middle East getting a larger endowment shouldn't be that hard).
Sorry, rambled for a while. As for the gist of your actual post, I would look into the University of Wolverhampton. In fairness I should mention also that the Government do claim that any university seeking to charge above £6,000 will need to show that it is embarking on substantial programmes to widen participation.
I think the actual protest was spurred more from a need to illustrate that they were unhappy (and therefore not willing to sit back and act as if they were not bothered by it). A protest after all is a symbol not a forum for debate, and I agree that although the university will not waiver from this new decision, in years to come we can look back and see that there were a lot of students who were willing to say no, to not say 'oh whats the point the government never listen' and wanted to illustrate their dislike for these cuts. Having protested, I can at least say that I didn't just walk on and ignore what had happened; although the mark wasn't deep on the government's plans at least we made one.
ReplyDeleteK,
ReplyDeleteI see your point, I think, but in time won't your registration of unhappiness be somewhat of a blip on the historical radar?
Better than no blip at all. To extend this metaphor, I believe that everything is a blip, our whole lives are blips. I make my blip and disappear, echoes of it remain but they just become distorted by time and become unrecognisable. I just know I would have felt guilty if I hadn't said anything, if I had kids who later wanted to go to uni but were hit with such crippling fees. I'm not a problem solver, or have any political aspirations, thats for others who I vote for to deal with. They are the people who see my blip and that of others on the richter scale, not with regards to the whole of history but just for a recent part of it. Then the 'blip' becomes more obvious and maybe more blips will come.
ReplyDeleteIt's a noble argument - I can't find the quote at the moment but Robert F Kennedy famously said something along the same lines when talking about the civil rights movement.
ReplyDeleteOn the question of making one's stand against a policy you disagree with, I would say you're probably right. Where I disagree with you though - or rather where I express doubt - is on the question of whether one should make a stand for the sake of that stand.
I totally agree. And that is when we have idiots who use the protest as an excuse to do stupid things.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I think the point you've raised is actually quite interesting. Should we protest for the sake of protesting means more than just some of the questionable actions in London. Should we protest even though it may have no effect? (I'm extrapolating here, but this I think is the basic question that's been raised).
ReplyDelete