|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Flow of Ideas: articles - Cambridge University Occupation |
|||||||||||||||||
 A Capital Friendly Culture for Further EducationAcademy ChainsAfter the Hillcole GroupAgainst What We Are WorthAmbassadors of Capital in SchoolsAn Educational Mansion House for BusinessApprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour PowerArtistic OutlookAyers Rocked In His Own UniverseB GenerationBourdieu on CapitalBourdieu on Cultural CapitalBourdieu on Social CapitalBrown PFI MonsterBusiness Sponsorship of SchoolsBusiness Takeover of Further EducationCambridge University OccupationCaught in the Storm of CapitalCo-payment in Hospitals and SchoolsCold Hands and Quarter MoonCommunitarianism for SchoolsCompulsory Consumption and Uni-NannyConforming Schools Conforming KidsCopy/South DossierCreating MonstersCreeping Privatisation in Higher EducationCritical MassCritical Pedagogy and CapitalismCritical Space in EducationDelivering E-LearningDigital Rights ManagementDistillationDorothy L. SayersDouglas Kennedy: best-selling novelistE-learning for Free at the BBCEdison Schools in the UKEducation and Inspections Bill (2006)Education As Culture MachineEducation FireworksEducation for DebtEducation IncorporatedEducation Markets and Missing ProductsEducation RepetitionEducation the HSBC WayEducation White PaperEducation, Globalisation and the Learning SocietyEmployers and School LeaversEvaluating Different Teaching MethodsEverything Louder Than Everything ElseFinance and FearFive Endings of DesiresFoibles, Frolics and PhantasmsFreedomFreewillFrench New Wave CinemaFull Report Ruth Rikowski's Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and LibrariesGender and Spokesperson in Group Work IssuesGlobal TradingGlobalisation and Education RevisitedHabituation of the NationHigher Education and Confused Employer SyndromeHitchcock: classic auteurHuman capital, the knowledge economy and businessIn Retro GlideIn the Dentist's ChairKids in the Land of No DreamsKM CritiqueLazy Brit KidsLearning in the Earthworks of CapitalLearning InvestmentsLearning to the MaxLibrarianship and Human RightsLifelong Learning and the Political Economy of ContainmentLSBU StrategyMarketisation of the Schools System in EnglandMarx and Education RevisitedMarx and the Future of the HumanMarxism and Education RevisitedMarxist Educational Theory UnpluggedMaturity and FreedomMcDonaldization and EducationMichael JacksonMichele RobertsMiss Allison and Novel WritingMoneythought in Higher EducationMrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen FloorMulticulturalism and Faith SchoolsMy Tony BlairNew Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2New Labour Policy for SchoolsNietzsche's SchoolNihilism and Educational ValuesNo Learner Left UnhassledNotes on the Confessions of John DenhamOn Education for Its Own SakeOn Education StudiesOn the Capitalisation of Schools in EnglandOn Transhumanism and EducationOpen AccessOutsourcing Public ServicesPeter Wilby on School PrivatisationPlanet of the CapitorgPlatoPlaygound Risks and Handcuffed KidsPoems by Gregory RikowskiPoems by Victor RikowskiPost-Fordism and SchoolsPost-Fordism in Primary SchoolsPostmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education PolicyPowerPointlessness in Higher EducationPrivate Schools as CharitiesPrivatisation of Schools in EnglandPrivatisation of Student DebtRaces in the Imperial WarReadings for Teaching CourseRecruitment and Labour PowerRevealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-powerRobotic EthicsRuth Rikowski Updates (Archives)Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)School Fees and the 1944 Education ActSchools: Building for BusinessScience Fiction Films and HorrorSecond Time as FarceSnowballs and Risk in SchoolsSocial Contract Theory and Political ObligationsSocialism is not DeadSpeed of Life - Part OneSpeed of Life - Part TwoStroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in SchoolsSustainability Policy at London South Bank UniversityTen Points on Marx, Class and EducationThe Business of Becoming a Business for AcademiesThe Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and AcademiesThe CBI and the Business Takeover of SchoolsThe Commodification of EducationThe Education White Paper and the Marketisation of SchoolsThe Evolution of Federations of SchoolsThe Last Parents EveningThe New Japanisation of SchoolsThe Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of SchoolsThe Standards Language-game for Schools in EnglandThe Which Blair ProjectThree Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of MasteryTony and Caroline BennTony Benn: Letters to GrandchildrenTransportTurney's and PPUUninspiring TowersUniverse of Capital and My SpaceUniversities in a Neoliberal WorldUtopia and EducationWhat Can Nietzsche Teach YaWhen Bullies Roam the SchoolWhen the Bowers BreakWhy Employers Can't Ever Get What They WantWill Hutton and His E-FossWolf on Marx Without SparksWomen in World Wars
| Occupation of Sidgwick Lecture Theatre at Cambridge University24-25th October 2006, from 6pm – 5am Report and Reflections Ruth Rikowski I took part in a very important and optimistic event at Cambridge University, on 24-25th October 2006 – which in essence seemed to me to be about students fighting back against the rule of capital! In practical terms, it was students protesting about top-up fees. Following on from a radical lecture given by Joyce Canaan, from the University of Central England from 5-6pm, Cambridge Education Not For Sale occupied Sidgwick lecture theatre from 6pm until 5am the next day, to demand that the University Vice-Chancellor, Alison Richard, stops lobbying for an even higher university tuition fee. There must have about 50 people there altogether. This was the first occupation to take place at Cambridge University for five years, and it was a momentous event. WHY THE OCCUPATION? Cambridge Education Not For Sale issued a statement, explaining the reasons for the occupation at the start of the sit-in. The statement read as follows: “Statement by Cambridge Education Not for Sale on the occupation of Sidgwick lecture site in protest at top-up fees Alison Richard: stop calling for higher fees! Tax the rich to fund free education! For a living grant for all! Cambridge Education Not for Sale are occupying a lecture theatre from 6pm on October 24 to demand the University Vice-Chancellor Alison Richard stops lobbying for an even higher university tuition fee. With students already faced with a £3,000 a year bill for tuition, VCs are demanding huge increases when the cap is reviewed in 2009, with elite institutions like Cambridge seeking permission to charge up to £10,000 a year. The financial situation for many students is already dire; many work long hours at low-paid jobs to fund their education, with a heavy impact on academic work. The introduction of the £3,000 top-up fee this year was a massive blow to education in Britain, making it impossible for countless young working-class people to enter Higher Education and effectively deterring thousands more. The 3.7% drop in applications represents over 15,000 students, equivalent to the whole of Coventry University disappearing! Raising the cap on fees will only increase the elitist nature of our education system. Education is a right, not a privilege for those whose parents can afford it; it should be a properly-funded, high quality public service, available to all. ENS believes that there is only one way to fund a genuinely free and fair education system - taxation of the rich and business, redistributing resources from profits and luxury to the education and other services people need. This is the only demand that can cut through the government’s lying claim that there is not enough money for public services. We want to unite students and workers, particularly lecturers and other campus workers, in defence of public education and against the privatisation which is affecting education as it is other public services. We stand against the privatisation and outsourcing of campus services and in solidarity with all university workers campaigning to defend and improve their rights. We welcome the anti-fees action by the National Union of Students and call on student activists to mobilise for the national demonstration in London on October 29. At the same time, we do not think that one demonstration a year will be enough to stop top-up fees, let alone begin to reverse marketisation and win the kind of education system students need. We’re calling on activists to take direct action against top-up fees on their campus. If you are based in or near Cambridge, please come and join our teach-in at Lecture Room 1, Sidgwick Site. Visit http://www.free-education.org.uk for more information or Email info@free-education.org.uk” **************************** RADICAL LECTURE: ‘POPULAR EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC ACTIVISM’ by JOYCE CANAAN The evening began with a radical lecture and suggestions for alternative ways of teaching, by Joyce Canaan, from UCE Birmingham entitled ‘Popular education and academic activism’. Joyce started her lecture by saying that it was very good that Cambridge are protesting against fees and are resisting what the government is doing. She hopes that this will lead to further action and that the action will not just stop on Sunday, after the demonstration. This is the third time she has talked on these topics at similar such events in five months, and Ed Emery also spoke at these events – the other two places being at Brighton (see, for example, Couvée, 2006) and London. She hopes and believes that more such events are likely to take place in the near future. Joyce then spoke about the importance of left academics working together and with students more - working with and against the higher education system. Dr Mike Neary at the University of Warwick, for example, talks about ‘academic activism’ (see Neary and Parker, 2004)—that is, academics who are politically active within the academy which is, after all, as Joyce suggested, a site where politics occurs and can be resisted. Joyce spoke about the fact that the conditions of learning and teaching are worsening including students having to work whilst studying. Students are paying more for a service that gets worse. Also, academic work is increasingly seen as a commodity that can be bought and sold which indicates a point made by Slaughter and Leslie a decade ago that we are living in an era of ‘academic capitalism’. Today, universities are forced to have a ‘bums on seats’ mentality, thanks to government restructuring of HE and more generally to do whatever is necessary in order to pack more students in, thereby bringing more money into the university. Science students tend to bring more money into the university than social science and humanities students, for example, so the desire is to get more ‘science bums on seats’. Baty refers to this ‘bums on seats’ mentality, saying that: “Higher education is “selling its soul” as managerialism, regulation and the drive to get “bums on seats” replace the wider human good of academe...” (Baty, 2006, p. 1). Baty based this statement on evidence produced by new research from a report by McNay and Bone (2006). Joyce continued saying that there has been an attack in HE on critical thinking. She made the point that whilst higher education has never been a bastion of free thinking, free thinking is increasingly sidelined as students and lecturers are encouraged to focus on enabling students to gain skills of ‘employability’ rather than critical thinking. We are living in repressive times, but there is always the possibility of resistance – there is always the possibility of getting over and beyond TINA, the ‘There Is No Alternative’ mentality. In her classes Joyce has been encouraging students to develop their critical skills so that they can, perhaps, in future engage in activism. We can put ‘sands in the machine’, to encourage critical thinking and to work against the neo-liberal agenda, she says. With this in mind, Joyce then looks at ‘popular education’ and ‘academic activism’ – both of which can provide us with a more meaningful education. Individual action is not enough. We need to try to change the system together in various ways, she argues. ‘Popular education’ is about students building on their current understandings and developing them further through engaging in a dialogue with peers and with the lecturer. Students and lecturers are then co-investigators, rather than students just having information deposited in them by lecturers. Joyce said that following Gramsci we can encourage students to move from their ‘common sense’ in which there are kernels of powerful insights about the power dynamics currently operating in the world to ‘good sense’ where these kernels are linked together into a coherent framework.. Joyce makes the point that we do not, as yet, have a national curriculum for higher education, so this can offer us some space for critical thinking and hope with which to develop this critical thinking as far as possible. Students at UCE Birmingham, where she works, and other universities sometimes lack some of the academic skills that prior generations had when they entered HE, but this can be overcome in various ways, Joyce pointed out. The notion of ‘academic literacies’ is useful. This recognises that different disciplines require different literacy skills and that all disciplines have tended to be organised from and for the dominant vantage point, argues that university lecturers should not focus on what their students lack, which can lead to a pathologising of the more diverse students now in HE. Rather, they should focus on how the university might seem to these students and developing teaching strategies that are supportive of these and other students. Students can also be supported by using a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) where students can engage in dialogue with one another and with the tutor in a space outside the classroom that can potentially be organised in less hierarchical ways than the conventional university lecture hall. If students are better supported in and outside the traditional classroom, they can develop their critical thinking skills which might then provide a basis for activism at some future point. But academics committed to developing students as political actors should not despair if this doesn’t happen immediately. Joyce argued that it is rather hubristic for university lecturers to think that they can, in one or two semesters of classes with students, encourage students to become activists! The latter requires considerable time and may (or may not) happen later in students’ lives. Joyce then looks at how she has been using ‘popular education’ for the period 2000-2004. She started using popular education to guide her teaching after 9/11. She wanted students who had to take social theory, a core module she was teaching, to look at social theory in order to help to explain what is going on in the world, and from there, to think about how to change the situation. Students had previously found social theory intimidating and boring and her aim was to show them its relevance for understanding the world. However, in retrospect she realised that she was initially imposing her ideas on students rather than building on their own and this latter insight now guides her work. So, she herself learnt through this process. Following on from this Joyce created a new module, ‘Social Identities’, using popular education insights more fully. This teaching was guided by the Zapatista insight that one works to change the world as one goes along, even as the ideas one is working on remain foggy. Taking the step of teaching differently, as a means of helping students to think differently was the risk that Joyce took (see e.g. Holloway, 2002). Her efforts are more successful as she more fully understands and engages with popular education insights. Joyce then gave some examples, and quotes from a variety of her students following on from the adoption of these different teaching methods and how beneficial students found it. She also emphasised the importance and benefit of using the word ‘I’ when students write essays, as this highlights the important role that the student her/himself plays in the whole process (in contrast to many academics, who argue that the word ‘I’ should not be used). Following on from this, Joyce Canaan said in a reflective email of 30th November 2006, that: “If and when we find the time and put in effort regarding academic activism, the results can be incredibly affirming for students, ourselves and the future of us all more generally. This requires numerous strategies. It requires re-conceptualising learning and teaching, from the ‘banking model’, which many of us learnt as students and previously reproduced as lecturers, to a more dialogic and critical problem-posing model. This re-conceptualisation takes considerable time, thought and effort. It requires re-organising lecture space more dialogically, and, I suggest, taking this dialogue from material to virtual space. It requires rethinking assessment, so that students can be supported more effectively through mechanisms of feeding forward and not just feeding back, and so that students engage in assessments that are hooked to, and that can potentially expand upon, their understandings of the world. By critically rethinking how we interact with students, and how students interact with one another and with us, we may be able to encourage students to more critically engage in learning. This critical rethinking, as academic activism and academic literacies literatures reminds us, is subversive in itself, as it works against the neo-liberal commodifying of knowledge and the marketising of learning/teaching relationships. As my work, especially last semester, with students suggests, our efforts can result in students questioning the taken for granted world which they and we are asked to accept without question, and this questioning has a potentially radical future.” Discussion following on from Joyce’s talk The discussion began with Ed Emery speaking about the concept of the ‘Free University’, which he has been developing and promoting, and how he is helping to set up various ‘Free Universities’ around the country. He helped to initiate the Free University of Cambridge about a year ago (see, for example, Couvée, 2006). He said that he will be speaking more about all this later in the evening. Many other issues were discussed, such as the importance of saying ‘No’. One student said, for example, how beneficial it is be able to choose ones own supervisor. He changed his supervisor and now feels much happier, as this supervisor has a greater understanding about where he is coming from, and what he is trying to do etc. A student mathematician raised the issue about whether maths could be taught according to Joyce’s alternative teaching methods. Surely, subjects like maths just consists of facts and knowledge that students must learn and understand? He could not see how Joyce’s form of teaching could fit into this, because he did not think that maths could be taught by this alternative, interactive method. He suggested that science was based on facts, which had to be imparted to the student, whereas social science was not based on facts in the same sort of way. So, that perhaps this form of teaching can be applied to the social sciences, but not to the sciences. I said that I did not think it had to be like this, and that we should remember that Einstein was a scientist, but that he was also a socialist. If Einstein had just swallowed up scientific facts, then he would never have become the great scientist that he was. The point is to learn and understand the basic scientific and mathematical facts and then build on them and be creative and develop our own ideas and theories. This also applies to the social sciences. There is no point in ‘reinventing the wheel’. So, yes, we have to understand the basic facts/theories in any academic discipline (i.e. ‘you can’t run before you can walk’), and this includes the social sciences. Einstein recognised the inadequacies in economics, for example. He said that: “Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in the present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future” (Einstein, 1949, p.2). So, if he had put his desire to create socialism above developing his scientific theory he would have had to really get to grips with basic economics first. Once he had that basic understanding he would then have been in a position to move economic theory forward, and develop economic theories, concepts and tools to analyse capitalism, and then seek to move beyond it. Interestingly, (as an aside) value theory is not taught much at all on economics degrees today, yet it is the bed-rock of capitalism. This shows how far short economics falls, at the current time, as an academic discipline. Without the continued injection of value, the capitalist mode of production would collapse, as I emphasis in an article of mine entitled Value - the life-blood of capitalism: knowledge is the current key (R. Rikowski, 2003). Thus, once the basics have been learnt and understood, that can then all be built on. There was some further discussion around this topic, and how it could be moved forward in general. There is so much that still needs to be thought-through – it is actually wrong to waste time, by reinventing the wheel, in my view. If more time was spent on developing good and rigorous social scientific theory, then we would be able to make far more progress in regard to trying to create a better, kinder and fairer world for ourselves. DANIEL RANDALL, NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS (NUS) Daniel Randall, a first year undergraduate student from Sheffield, a member of ‘Education Not For Sale’ and also on the Executive Committee of the NUS, then spoke. Daniel said that a consideration about how education should be organised is very important. What is happening today in education is very concerning. And the fees are going to increase again soon. All this is part of a clear project to subordinate every sector of public life to the market. Education is becoming about training a low paid workforce for tomorrow. Vocational and careerist type courses are growing in popularity. At Lambeth College, for example, a course on Afro-Caribbean Cultural Studies was being replaced with a course on Afro-Caribbean Hairdressing. More and more vocational courses are appearing all the time. Also, students are now ending up with huge debts – sometimes, £15,000 and more and this is a scandal. Furthermore, halls of residences are being privatised. Daniel spoke about the demonstration that was happening on the coming Sunday, against top-up fees, and urged as many people as possible to attend. He made the point that this was the first occupation in UK against top-up fees. And now some other similar events are being planned. So, hopefully, this will be the beginning of something significant, and that in time, all this action will bring about some real and worthwhile change! Daniel said that government is very good at misusing and twisting terminology, and gave the slogan ‘every child matters’ as an example of this. The government obviously does not care about every child; they only care in regard to children adding value, and thereby improving the economy etc. Daniel spoke about the importance of training pupils and students today – that this is far more important than actually educating them, in terms of benefiting the economy!! This could be phrased another way, I suggest. It is ultimately about nurturing, training and educating the next lot of labour-power – i.e. with providing labourers with skills, training and an education that capitalism needs, but certainly not education for itself, enabling people to become free and clear thinkers in their own right. We should try to use concepts and terms in order to enhance our understanding. This brings us back to the importance and value of Marx’s concepts, as far as I am concerned. So, as soon as a human is born in capitalism, the process begins of nurturing the labour-power of this new born baby. An unpleasant thought, but true never-the-less! So, the baby is fed, nourished and nurtured. As she/he grows and develops they learn many other skills. In the knowledge revolution, that we find ourselves in today, this process of skills development takes longer and is more complex. Once it has been sufficiently developed this labour-power is then sold in the market-place as a commodity, in the same way that all other commodities are sold. Once the labourer has sold her/his labour-power in this way, she/he is then given a wage. By this process labour becomes alienated, exploited and objectified. Daniel urged everyone to take further action. SLIDE PRESENTATION ON ‘ART AND ANARCHISM’ by MARTYN EVERETT There then followed a slide presentation by Martyn Everett. Martyn began by saying that he was pleased to be invited to this teach-in as when one was held in an adjacent building in the late 1970s he had gone along without an invitation. Martyn said that education can be a great vehicle for change, but that at present it is also a way of controlling access to privilege. He praised the ‘University of the Third Age’- a self-organising "university" for people over 45 years of age, and he said that it has transformed peoples’ lives. Furthermore, it has helped to overcome the division between tutors and students. (For more on this see: the article "Practical Anarchism: U3A - The Unlikely Bakuninists" reprinted at http://martyn.everett.googlepages.com). He also mentioned the Free Schools set up in the UK from the 1890s onwards. He then said that he was going to show some slides on ‘Art and Anarchism’ (as he was not able to find the time at such short notice to prepare a new talk unfortunately). Martyn said that there had been a strong relationship between artists and the anarchist movement since the 19th Century friendship between Courbet and Proudhon. Anarchism ideas of freedom appealed to artists, and their anarchism often underpinned their artistic radicalism. Martyn then showed about 80 slides. These ranged from caricatures of anarchists to portraits of anarchists by well-known artists. He spoke about each slide at length and without notes. One slide, for example, depicted an anarchist meeting drawn by Picasso at the time of his involvement with anarchists in Spain and later in France. Another slide depicted a picture of Max Stirner – drawn by Engels, although Engels opposed the ideas of Stirner. Stirner thought that the organisation of society should start with the individual. There were many anti-war slides, some slides of Spanish Civil War posters and examples of anarchist street art and strike posters. The whole slide show was, indeed, very interesting and enjoyable, and is a wonderful archive record of art and anarchism. Martyn emailed me after the event, saying that it was unfortunate that we were not able to talk together at the event, and then told me that he used to be in a group called Librarians for Social Change. Librarians for Social Change was an organisation that had similar aims to Information for Social Change (ISC). ISC challenges the dominant paradigms of library and information work. Librarians for Social Change folded, but then ISC started a few years after this. I am on the editorial board of ISC myself and my profile can be seen at: http://libr.org/isc/profile.html#b and indeed, I was the co-editor of the ISC e-journal for a period. I also have many published articles in this e-journal. Martyn also has a web-log, Booksurfer, see: http://booksurfer.blogspot.com. RUTH RIKOWSKI ‘What is happening to education and student life today?’ and ‘Globalisation, Information and Libraries’ I gave 2 talks – one focusing on education, which is mainly Glenn Rikowski’s area, and one on libraries and information, which is mainly my area, although we complement and support each other obviously, and both fields are vital for any civilised society! Both of the talks were Powerpoint presentations. The first on education, considered some general issues about what is happening to students and education today, followed by a focus on 3 short articles on education (viewing it from a radical perspective) by Glenn Rikowski, that are available on his web log, ‘The Volumizer’: http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/. The second talk was based on my book, Globalisation, Information and Libraries (R. Rikowski, 2005). EDUCATION: ‘What is happening to education and student life today?’ In my first talk, I began by asking ‘where on earth are we going with education?’ Indeed, can this really be called education at all, in any real sense of the world? Today, we are plagued with student debt; overdrafts until people are over 40 years old; a decline in thinking and critiquing; obsession with degrees like business studies and psychology; students working part-time in places like McDonalds, some even turning to prostitution in order to make ends meet; over-testing; student stress and a decline in original thought and the development of theories. The implications of all this for education and student life today are scary, but also scary for the human race in general. It is likely to lead to less questioning of the bigger issues and a loss of a sense of the wonderment of life etc. etc. This surely is not sustainable in the long-term. So, what does it mean ‘to be educated’ today? Education is becoming more and more just a means for getting a career and personal success. Also, what are the implications of all this buying of education and education services? There are some interesting contradictions here. It could be argued that a student (as a consumer) should be able to demand more. Is it right, for example, that many universities have a register today, and some obligation for students to attend? Given that the student is paying for it, why should she/he not be able to choose what to attend and what not to attend? Also, should there be compulsory units that have to be attended? It all gets increasingly complex and contradictory. Another area to consider is - what is going to happen to future potential geniuses? Hackett and Griffiths (2006) speak about the fact that students that display originality are being penalised in the A’ level examinations, and that there is an unfair exam marking system in place. Markers mark to a rigid set of criteria, which does not allow for recognising much originality of thought on the part of the students. This has also resulted in the remarking of many examination papers. One of my sons, Victor Rikowski, has considered this and other related education problems, in an article of his that is in the e-journal, Information for Social Change, entitled ‘Problems in Education Today’ (V. Rikowski, 2006). What we are witnessing today is the commodification of education. Through our published work and our talks Glenn and I seek to demonstrate how both education services and library and information services are being commodified. We call ourselves ‘Open Marxists’ which is a school of thought that seeks to overcome the more traditional box-like, deterministic Marxist approach. Not that Marx himself was deterministic, but some followers of his have been, which has damaged Marxism in some ways, in our opinion, and has not helped in trying to see beyond capitalism in a sustainable way. The key point is to analyse global capitalism and try to understand what is going on and then seek to move beyond it. Following on from Marx, our analysis of capitalism must begin with the commodity. Capitalism is about the commodification of all that surrounds us – impossible in reality, but never-the-less, this is its aim. So, what is happening on the global stage is that both education services and library services are being transformed into international tradable commodities. This is happening through, for example, the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Both Glenn and I have examined the implications of the GATS for education, libraries and information (G. Rikowski, 2001 and R. Rikowski, 2005). So the aim is to commodify education and then to make you pay for it. Then, at some point, you will have to pay to go into your library, to use the resources that you need for the degree that you have paid for! This is what students are all suffering from, and this trend is likely to increase. How can this juggernaut be stopped? Action What is happening here at Cambridge is wonderful, and we need much more of this type of activity. This includes demonstrations, sit-ins and occupations. Earlier this year, squatters occupied one of the University of London buildings, for example, and held a ‘Radical Academics’ event in it. Both Joyce Canaan and Ed Emery spoke at this event and there were over 100 people there altogether. It was a very exciting event. Other forms of activity and action obviously include writing; giving talks; lobbying MPs; petitioning etc. Why does political action seem to have died so much today? People seem disengaged with politics in general, in so many ways. Traditional politics is in a real mess. Perhaps, radicalism will now start at Oxbridge! Obviously, some students are too worried about what might happen to them, if they don’t just ‘buckle down’. But if something is not done soon, to try to change the tide, then the long-term effects are, indeed, very scary. And just ‘buckling down’ does not offer any real form of security anyway . You are all setting a wonderful example here at Cambridge. Some recent trends in education: three articles from ‘The Volumizer’. Glenn Rikowski, on his web log, ‘The Volumizer’, posts various articles and notices connected with education, from a radical perspective. See: http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/ I looked at 3 short articles that he posted recently to it: 1. ‘Compulsory consumption: Uni-Nanny, Truancy and Retention in Higher Education’ (G. Rikowski, 2006a – http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/entries/1229) This is a piece about a new student registration scheme that has been introduced, called ‘Uni-Nanny’. ‘Uni-Nanny’ was developed at the University of Glamorgan, by Steve Thomas. It is an electronic student register and surveillance system. Electronic registers have been around for a while and over £1 billion has been spent on various anti-truancy measures by the government in the last decade. Uni-Nanny announces itself as ‘an online attendance monitoring system primarily aimed at the educational sector’ (Uni-Nanny, und.). Its web site cites various research studies that indicate a correlation between student attendance and student retention. It also provides data on student drop-out – 17.1% for mature students and 18.7% for younger ones. The majority of students (75%) thought that the university should monitor attendance as they thought it showed that the university cared about their success. This seems rather concerning and we might want to question why they took that attitude. But they were not all happy with it. A National Union of Students spokesperson, for example, said that the system ‘treated students like criminals’. There are also Orwellian overtones – which has been brought out by Furedi (2006). And this hardly goes along with the idea of academic freedom, and students wanting to learn for the sake of it. As Glenn says, it is ironic that students are being forced to attend when higher education management is attempting to cut back on direct teaching time and replace it with e-learning. Systems like Uni-Nanny might also be able to make significant profits in the future. Furthermore, interestingly, McNay notes that: “…a nanny culture that emphasises staff control rather than care has triumphed, born of financial dependency on the state and regulatory regimes that operate in the name of quality assurance. At the same time, academics see students as increasingly immature, keen to assert their rights without recognising their responsibilities while possessing consumerist expectations of being spoon-fed” (McNay, 2006, p. 12). 2. ‘Moneythought in higher education’ (G. Rikowski, 2006b – http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/entries/1219) For many students, the main reason for studying today is for MONEY – to be able to get a better job etc. The main aim of the game for many universities today is also often to find ways to make money. As Glenn says: “Moneythought can be viewed as where ideas, intellectual activities or the practical and organisational features of higher education are incorporated within or subordinated to the function of money-making. Money becomes the judge and jury of activities within the academy” (G. Rikowski, 2006b). Furthermore, overseas students bring in a lot of money to the university. There are also new bonus schemes and payment by results schemes are about controlling academics output in ways which maximise income. Academic outputs of staff are judged by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Universities also have to spend more time trying to win money, in order to finance their various research projects etc, and this money often comes from large corporations. Glenn says that what is needed is a Marxist analysis of money and its existence in higher education, and that a useful starting could be Money and the Human Condition by Michael Neary and Graham Taylor (1998). 3. ‘Conforming Schools, Conforming kids?’ (G. Rikowski, 2006c – http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/entries/1220 ) The media often portrays students as being conformist today - as opposed to students of the 60s and 70s. The third short article of Glenn’s that I look at, focuses on these conforming/non-conforming students. Conforming pupils and students are often seen to be ‘boffins’, ‘grafters’ and ‘conformers’ – with the emphasis being on working hard, being compliant, conformist and getting the grades. One example here is Shame Blackman’s classic study (1995). Blackman’s study focused on 13 year 11 ‘boffin’ girls, who formed a subgroup and saw themselves as being academically superior but sexually and socially inferior. The boffins supported the schools’ values and school organisation. This was connected with their career and academic trajectory. Blackman said they ‘specialised in academic superiority’. Furthermore, as McNay says: “In many places, there is now a culture of compliance and conformity rather than creativity and innovation” (McNay, 2006) However, Glenn points out that there is another trend of pupils showing non-conformist attitudes – a ‘yob culture’. There have been pupil boycott of lessons, for example, due to what they perceive of as poor education (Clark 2004) and student strikes (e.g. Hawkins, 2004). There have been many examples of pupil protests over the last 3 years or so. Students at Adam Smith College in Kirkcaldy in Scotland, for example, protested at the name of their college. They thought that Adam Smith represented exploitation and greed (Lister, 2005). But laws surrounding protests have been stiffened in more recent years. There have also been pupil and student protest in other countries. Japanese school children, for example, refused to sing the national anthem in class, which was made compulsory in 1999 (McNeill, 2006). And in the US, students walked out of lessons in protest at military recruitment drives on campus (Moore, 2005). Glenn concludes by saying that: “The nature of the current ‘deal’ for young people is obscure. The prospects for pupil and student conformity will be tested further still when, as predicted, the lid comes off higher education fees in 2010. Meanwhile, many pupils and students will continue to conform perhaps on the understanding that things are complex and tougher in education and the labour market. So what’s the deal now?” (G. Rikowski, 2006c) What will happen in the future? Are students likely to become more or less conformist? One wonders. Something will surely have to change, and the beginnings of that change is, perhaps, here at Cambridge. Some other worrying trends in universities There are many other worrying trends that are happening in universities today. This includes students having to write Personal Development Profiles, CVs and reflective reports as part of their coursework. In regard to reflective reports, for example, students often have to keep reflecting on what they have done, rather than developing their thinking and an enquiring mind. There is also the problem of the dumbing-down effect in general. Many universities are being overloaded with administration and bureaucracy and it is certainly becoming more difficult to spot and nurture the talented students. Many members of university staff are also very overworked with all this stuff. With increasing debt, students become ever more locked into the system, as they have to go for ‘safe jobs’ in order to pay off their debts. We are breeding a generation of conformist people. But capitalism is full of contradictions – so, whilst on one level it wants and needs conformist types, at another level it wants and needs more con-conformist types; people that will take risks, come up with new ideas etc. Education necessary for the Knowledge Revolution Why is the trend in education going this way? We need to look at the wider picture and adopt a Marxist analysis, as far as I am concerned. Capitalism goes through different phases – it must do this, in order to survive. We need to recognise the fact that social systems are evolving processes, I would suggest – one system exists for a certain period, and then that system becomes inadequate, and gradually evolves into another system. This can be compared to the way in which animals evolve. So, there was the ancient-slave based system, feudalism and now we have capitalism. And within capitalism itself there are sub-phases - there was the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and now we are moving into the knowledge revolution. In this knowledge revolution, it becomes increasingly necessary to extract value from intellectual labour – from the ideas and knowledge that is in peoples’ heads. Thus, labour in general, and intellectual labour, in particular, continues to be exploited, alienated and objectified. We now need to invest more time and resources into labour-power (the capacity to labour) because people need more skills, education and knowledge, in order to be effective intellectual labourers, in the knowledge revolution, compared to the industrial revolution. As I say: “Today, we are moving into the knowledge revolution, which is the latest phase of capitalism. This knowledge revolution is dependent on knowledge, information, skills, human capital, intellectual capital, ideas, services, intangibles, brainpower, education and brand names” (R. Rikowski, 2004b). Furthermore: “This creation of value from intellectual labour, which is then embedded in the commodity becomes necessary, so that intangible commodities can be sold in the market-place and profits can be made (and ultimately profits can only ever be derived from value)” (R. Rikowski, 2004b). And value can only ever be derived from labour. All this is needed to ensure the success of the knowledge revolution, and the continued success of capitalism itself. So, the type of education that we have today is necessary in order to achieve all this. I consider all this further in my two books (R. Rikowski, 2005 and 2007). Finally, McNay’s comments here are also very illuminating. He says that: “Mass production of graduates for a knowledge economy is fine, but what shall it profit us if we win in a globalised world but sacrifice our souls in the process” (McKay, 2006, p.12). LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION My second talk focused on my book, Globalisation, Information and Libraries: The implications of the World Trade Organisation’s GATS and TRIPS Agreements (R Rikowski, 2005). The slides that I showed were originally prepared for a talk that I gave at Swansea University, Wales, for the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), Career Development Group, Wales (see http://libr.org/isc/events/swansea.html and Catherall, 2006). They were a lively PowerPoint version of my original slides, with little people and words flashing in on the screen etc. They were designed by one of my sons, Victor Rikowski. People at Cambridge seemed to enjoy the lively and fun presentation!! I emphasised the fact that although my book was primarily written for library and information professionals it will also, hopefully, be of interest to many other groups of people, including academics, NGOs, the developing world in general, government departments, lawyers, trade unions, political parties, lawyers and various interested individuals. When writing my book my aim was to get my message out to as many different people as possible. The book is in 4 parts – globalisation and the WTO, GATS, TRIPS, and an Open Marxist theoretical analysis of global capitalism and the WTO. Globalisation and the WTO – I begin my book by considering the meaning of globalisation, which incorporates a number of elements including the ‘death of distance’, exacerbating international trade, a global approach to norms and values, whilst also celebrating diversity (which is contradictory) and the increased interconnectedness of the world. However, we must not forget that 150 years ago Marx and Engels saw that a particular form of globalisation was developing, saying that: “All that is solid melts into air…the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere” (Marx and Engels, 1848, p. 83). Their foresight was amazing! Glenn Rikowski looks at globalisation at a deeper level and argues that there are 4 dimensions to globalisation – cultural, the eroding of the power of nation states, commodification and labour taking on the ‘value form’. Globalisation should more accurately be called ‘global capitalism’. I challenge the TINA, ‘There Is No Alternative’ to globalisation/global capitalism in my book. I then consider the World Trade Organisation, which includes an overview of the WTO and an examination of the WTO’s main practices, procedures, administrative and decision-making processes and groupings. From here I examine the GATS (the WTOs General Agreement on Trade in Services) - including an overview of the GATS, an historical perspective and a look at GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which was the predecessor to the GATS; the liberalisation of trade in services and the placing of more services in the market-place; the threat to state-funded services, including library services and the definition of the meaning of ‘services’ in the GATS. As Krajewski says: “The goal of these negotiations is to eventually achieve full commitments in all sectors including those sectors where public monopolies still exist. It is therefore safe to conclude that GATS mandates the liberalisation of public monopolies” (Krajewski, 2002). Thus, this basically means that various state-funded services do, in reality, fall under the GATS, and this is why the GATS poses a real threat to them. In essence, the GATS enables private companies to make inroads into our public services. I also examine GATS, libraries, information, cultural services and education services within an international perspective and emphasis the fact that Canada has been very much at the forefront. 18 countries have committed their Library Services to the GATS. These are Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Gambia, Georgia, Hong Kong, Iceland, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Sierre Leonne, Singapore, USA and Venezuela. In my book, I look, in particular, at the following countries and areas – Canada, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, developing world in general, India, South Africa, Europe, UK, Chile and Singapore. I also give practical examples of how the commercialisation and privatisation agenda is taking hold in libraries, focusing on state-funded library provision in the UK, particularly public libraries. I consider the commercialisation, privatisation and capitalisation of libraries and the ‘national faces of the GATS’. The term the ‘national faces of the GATS’ was a term that Glenn coined, to help us to understand what is going on. They are mechanisms or facilitators, to help to enable the GATS to take effect more easily in WTO member states. In this regard, I consider best value, library standards and the peoples’ network. When the public library service in the London Borough of Haringey failed its ‘best value’ report, for example, a private company, Instant Library Ltd, was brought in for a certain period, to try to ‘improve’ the service. As I emphasise in my book, though, a private company must always put the need to make a profit, before the wants and needs of the local people; this is its raison d’etre. So, all such moves pose a real threat to the aims of the public library service. I also consider the positions taken by various library and cultural bodies on the GATS, such as the Canadian Library Association and the American Library Association. All these bodies are basically against the WTO trade agenda for libraries. TRIPS (the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) TRIPS is a highly significant document. Drahos and Braithwaite say that: “TRIPS is the most important agreement on intellectual property of the 20th century” (Drahos and Braithwaite, 2002). In my book I provide an overview of the agreement, which includes a consideration of the different types of intellectual property rights in TRIPS, including trade marks, geographical indicators, industrial designs, trade secrets, copyright and patents. I then consider whether TRIPS should really be part of the WTO, and whether it is really about trade. From there I focus on TRIPS, copyright, libraries and information. This includes an historical perspective on copyright, the balancing act in copyright and moral rights and TRIPS. Moral rights have been excluded from TRIPS. I argue, that in regard to the balance in copyright that there are actually three parts to the balance and not just one, but that achieving any real balance is actually impossible. TRIPS, traditional knowledge and libraries in the developing world are considered and how large companies appropriate traditional knowledge from indigenous communities, patent it and make money out of it, without giving due recompense to these communities. Finally, the implications of TRIPS for libraries and information internationally is examined, including Canada, USA, Europe, India and the developing world in general, Africa and UK. I emphasis that TRIPS is concerned with trading of intellectual property rights, and not with any humane and moral issues. Open Marxist theoretical analysis of global capitalism and the WTO In the final part, I develop an Open Marxist theoretical analysis of global capitalism and the WTO. I emphasise that, following on from Marx, we need to begin our analysis of capitalism with the commodity. As Marx said: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities; its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity” (Marx, 1867, p. 43). The logic of capitalism is the extension of the commodification into infinity. This is not possible in reality, but never-the-less, this is its aim. Capitalism essentially is a madhouse, based on irresolvable contradictions, but we have to try to make sense out of this madhouse, as we live in and through it. The WTO assists with the extension of the commodification process, through the various trade agreements, such as GATS and TRIPS. Thus, services (through GATS) and intellectual property rights (through TRIPS) are being transformed into international tradable commodities. Value that is created and extracted from labour, and largely from intellectual labour in the knowledge revolution, becomes embedded in these commodities. Only labour can create value. Yet, although labour creates value, it has no value in itself. As Marx said: “…human labour creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object” (Marx, 1867, p. 57). From this value, profits are made, and capitalism is sustained. Through this process, labour becomes exploited, alienated and objectified. I am developing a whole body of theory and ideas on globalisation and the knowledge revolution. I conclude my book by saying that: “Let humans rejoice…in the world that they have developed with their labour – do not let them be dominated by it. Let us look towards a better future and a brighter world” (R. Rikowski, 2005, p.336). Note Following on from the Teach-In I felt very optimistic and inspired, and so decided to go and see Tony Benn speak at the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) Members’ Day (I am a member of CILIP) on the 26th October 2006, speaking about why he keeps a diary and why he is such an obsessive archivist. I asked him a question, following on from his talk. I spoke about the Cambridge Teach-In and ‘Education Not for Sale’, and suggested that it would be good to have a ‘Libraries Not For Sale’ campaign. Tony said that he would support any such campaign and very much believed in free public libraries and freedom of information. Leading on from this, I wrote an article about the report, coupling it with our own connections with the Benn’s, and in particular the part that Caroline Benn played in inspiring and supporting Glenn in the writing of his book The Battle in Seattle: its significance for education, Tufnell Press: London, 2001 (which she endorsed). This article is now available on our website. See: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/index.php?page=articles&sub=Tony%20and%20Caroline%20Benn THE UNIVERSITY PROCTORS’ VISITATION! Just as I finished giving my talks two proctors arrived, in full cap and gown, and spoke to everyone. One was Chief Provost, Dr Frank King. They politely asked the students when they were thinking of leaving. They emphasised the fact that it was an illegal occupation and that the students could even lose their degrees over the action!! They said that the students could easily have booked up a room and invited people to speak, and done it all legitimately. The students explained that they were protesting about tuition fees, and that this was why they were taking this action, and why they did not book up a room in the usual way. It was important that they were taken notice of. The proctors said that a decision on tuition fees could not be made that night! They then said they wanted the names of the people at the university that were involved in the occupation and that if they did not give their names then this, in itself, was a disciplinary offence! (although I could not quite see how that could be applied in reality, unless they had photographic memories and could ‘clock up’ all the faces of the students with a blink of their eyes! But so be it). Anyway, the students started discussing the issues in front of the proctors and then said that they would prefer to continue the discussion without the proctors present. The proctors then left. The students then continued to discuss what to do. They made the point that they should all give their names, otherwise some people might be picked on and that would not be fair. Also, what is the point in not giving their names, as they were protesting, and wanted it to be known that they were protesting! So, they all wrote their names down on a piece of paper, and this was given to the proctors. They decided to continue with the occupation as they still had a lot of their programme left, and they were not just going to finish because the proctors wanted them to, and allow themselves to be intimidated in that way. This was a serious event, addressing a very serious issue, and needed to be recognised as such. The proctors were then informed of their decision, and they replied saying that the students were now then responsible for health and safety issues; also that the heating had now been switched on! FILM This was followed by a film from the AUTONOMOUS STUDY PROJECT Whilst the film was being shown, I unfortunately had to leave. This meant that there was no opportunity to have a discussion around my 2 talks, which was unfortunate, but I got the distinct impression that those listening to my talks were all very interested in what I had to say, and really seemed to understand and engage with some of the main messages that I was endeavouring to get across. Several people came up to me individually, after my talk, and spoke to me, saying how interesting they found it etc. ED EMERY Ed Emery spoke about the concept of the ‘Free University’ which he has been developing and promoting (see, for example, Couvée, 2006). Interestingly, Ed Emery also organised an International Conference that was held at King’s College, University of Cambridge in April 2006, on the topic of ‘Immaterial Labour, Multitudes and New Social Subjects: Class Composition in Cognitive Capitalism’ (for further information see: http://www.geocities.com/immateriallabour/index.html). This conference brought together an international panel of speakers, and will be producing a Book of Proceedings in early 2007. Speakers included the following: ADAM ARVIDSSON [University of Copenhagen]: “Creative Class and Creative Proletariat? Class composition and immaterial labour in the Copenhagen cultural industries” MICHEL BAUWENS [Foundation for P2P Alternatives, Thailand]: “The political economy of peer production” ZANNY BEGG [Sydney, Australia]: “Imagining subjectivity – globalisation and visual art” MASSIMO DE ANGELIS and DAVID HARVIE [University of East London and University of Leeds]: “Cognitive capitalism and the rat race: how capital measures ideas and affects” EMMA DOWLING [Birkbeck College, London]: “Formulating new social subjects? An enquiry into the realities of a (hyper)-affective worker” NICK DYER-WITHEFORD [University of Western Ontario]: “The circulation of the common” ED EMERY [Universitas adversitatis]: “General intellect and the Intifada: Part 2” ANDREA FUMAGALLI [University of Pavia]: “Basic income sustainability and productivity growth in cognitive capitalism: An initial theoretical framework” HARRY HALPIN [University of Edinburgh]: “Digital sovereignty: The immaterial aristocracy of the World Wide Web” GEORGE J. CICCARIELLO MAHER [University of California, Berkeley]: “Hegemonic articulation and the logic of separation” GIUSEPPINA MECCHIA [University of Pittsburgh]: “Meeting Felix: Guattari and the Italian Autonomists from Franco Berardi Bifo to Wu Ming” NEBOJŠA MILIKIČ: “The inquiry with workers from Bor, Serbia” YANN MOULIER BOUTANG [Univs. Compiègne and Binghamton]: “A Resistible New Deal in Europe: On the crisis of the Contrat de Première Embauche (CPE) in France” YANN MOULIER BOUTANG [Univs. Compiègne and Binghamton]: “Antagonism under cognitive capitalism: class composition, class consciousness and beyond” TONI NEGRI: “J.M. Keynes, Guaranteed Minimum Income and the Recent Events in France” SABRINA OVAN [University of Southern California] “The General Body” VASSILIS TSIANOS [University of Hamburg] and DIMITRIS PAPADOPOULOS [University of Cardiff]: “Who’s afraid of immaterial workers? Embodied capitalism, precarity, imperceptibility” CARLO VERCELLONE [University of Paris-1] A paper on Social Guaranteed Income STEVE WRIGHT [Monash University]: “There and back again: mapping the pathways within autonomist Marxism” TORU YAMAMORI [St Edmund’s, Cambridge]: “Una sola multitudine: Struggles for Basic Income and the common logic that emerged from Italy, the UK and Japan” END OF THE OCCUPATION AND GOING TO SENATE HOUSE The occupation finally ended at 5am, when the students then made their way to Senate House, laying out their demands. DEMONSTRATION ON THE FOLLOWING SUNDAY, 29th OCTOBER 2006 The demonstration against top-up fees took place the following Sunday, on 29th October 2006. On the ‘Education Not For Sale’ website (see: http://www.free-education.org.uk/?p=244) the following statement was posted, following on from the demonstration: “ENS on the NUS Demo” Education Not for Sale activists from York, Cambridge, Sheffield, London and elsewhere joined forces for a ‘tax the rich’ contingent on yesterday’s NUS national demonstration. Although the demonstration as a whole was small (probably around 5,000 people) and characterised by NUS’s timid political demands (fighting only to defend the status quo rather than to abolish fees altogether), the ENS contingent and the presence of other radicals on the demonstration meant that it was given some political spine. After the demo, around 40 ENS supporters and other grassroots campaigners met to discuss direct action. Activists who have already organised actions on their campuses agreed to contribute to a ‘how-to’ guide that will appear on this website soon, along with a fuller report of the demonstration.” There are also some pictures of the demonstration on the website. DONALD MACLEOD INTERVIEWS ALISON RICHARD, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, VICE-CHANCELLOR, in THE GUARDIAN (HIGHER EDUCATION), 31st October 2006, p. 11 One week after the occupation an interview with Alison Richard, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University interestingly appeared in The Guardian, (in the Higher Education section). Top up fees was one of the areas that was discussed. MacLeod said that: “Arriving in 2003, Richard was catapulted into the fevered debate about top-up fees but managed to turn it to advantage” (MacLeod, 2006, p. 11). Alison Richard made the point that: “Coming into the heat of the debate about top-up fees, I ran the gauntlet of the press saying, are you for them or against them? To which my honest and truthful answer was, first we need to design a needs-blind bursary system and then I will be prepared to support them” (Richard, in MacLeod, 2006, p. 11). MacLeod said that Richard is very worried about the underfunding of undergraduate education, but that she is in no hurry to start raising the £3,000 fees cap. She is happy to wait until the government reconsiders it in 2008/9. Also, that she is not in favour of privatising the university, because she does not want the university to be dependent on one source of income. Furthermore, Richard said that: “I care about social justice and I think that if universities become a pathway for the replication of social inequality over generations, that’s a big problem, and we have to make sure that is not the case. If Cambridge were to lose its capacity to recruit the most able students from across socioeconomic backgrounds it would be a loser as well – you lose the richness of your community (Richard in MacLeod, 2006, p. 11). The timing of this interview is very interesting it seems to me, along with the comments that the Vice-Chancellor makes, which can be interpreted as a wish to calm the students down, I think, and to encourage them to think that there is not too much to worry about in regard to top up fees, and removing the cap. Rather, that this will all be undertaken slowly and thoughtfully, and that the Vice-Chancellor at Cambridge does not, in essence, place money above education. It almost seems in the interview that she is trying to counteract the statement put out by the students, saying that Alison Richard is lobbying for an even higher university tuition fee. Why did Richard suddenly feel the need to say all this, particularly given that, as MacLeod points out, she has been keen on keeping a low national profile up to now? I think this is one indication that the student action is having a real effect – but of course, the pro-establishment media would not want to phrase it in that way! We always need to be fully aware of just what we are up against! So, of course, there was no reference to the occupation in the article or to the concerns raised by EUS Cambridge about top up fees. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I think this was a very important and significant event. The continued commercialisation and marketisation of education continues to gather pace, and needs to be stopped, if we want to maintain any form of a civilised society! Confronting the agenda for top up fees, is obviously essential, in order to try to halt the exacerbation of this process. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, because the top up fee process obviously becomes part of the commodification process in itself, and secondly, because as a society, if fees continue to increase, we are highly likely to end up with less independently-minded, thinking students that are able to critique what is going on, and seek to change the tide. In essence, there will be fewer students like yourselves, that are able not only to critique the situation, but also be prepared to take the risks that are necessary, in order to try to change the situation, because people will be so worried about how much debt they are in! Let us hope that this action will be successful, that the cap on top up fees will not be lifted in 2010, and that we are able to make further inroads into challenging the neoliberal agenda that currently seems to reign so supreme. Next Page - Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
