A few months ago, in the bygone days of Semester One, I got word from a couple of independent sources that certain actions by the University could be seen, from one perspective at least, as elitist and to the detriment of students and student groups. I and a couple of friends therefore went on a little investigation to see if we could find whether there was any truth in this, or not. At the very least, we wanted to ascertain what was happening and why.
A fortnight’s worth of digging later, we were entirely frustrated and nowhere nearer our aims. Most irritatingly, every stone uncovered revealed blocks and dead-ends not just by the University, but by the Students’ Union as well. Data we requested took weeks to come through, and when it eventually did, was not correspondent to what we’d asked for and was therefore largely useless. “Off the record” became kind of clichéd after hearing the phrase so many times in relation to enquiries I made. The final straw came after being told that some of our lines of enquiry were too boisterous to serve any purpose. After explaining that some of that boisterousness fostered from our inability to access certain data which could prove pivotal to the investigation, the person I was speaking to remarked that he actually had what I wanted to hand. “Can I look at it?” I asked, quite hopeful that the rigmarole would be over. “No.” The reply had come before I’d even finished speaking. Two weeks spent, two weeks wasted. Degrees put on backburners and priorities rearranged: all to be dashed with a single-syllable rebuttal.
I then got thinking; why does this happen? Why should a wall of silence descend when someone goes poking about in dark corners? I’m not stupid; the University can be expected to protect its own interests, and the fact that the Students’ Union gets hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of University grants each year means I doubt they’d want to ruffle too many feathers. They’re working partners. But is this right? Obviously, there will be occasions where the interests of both the Union and University cross over, but surely we, as students, should be looking to reform rather than reaffirm?
At the minute, it seems, we quite simply don’t. As a general rule, students of this era seem to come from a more mellow stock than the stereotypical anarchists and hippies of yesteryear. Ideological divisions are no longer so stark, with Communism no longer the international system it once was; capitalist democracy, you could say, is the hegemony. Similarly there isn’t the vitality now that there was in opposition movements back in the day. Since the Thatcher era trade unions, and consequently the power of other socialist movements, has waned significantly.
But hey, maybe that isn’t so bad after all; we’re better off than ever before, life expectancy is up too, and to be honest, is it really worth bothering with? Why enforce change when I’m fine now?
Well, there are plenty of reasons. Collusion at the top is the product of indifference at the bottom, and on the whole students seemingly couldn’t give a toss. We’re the first generation to be paying top-up fees, for God’s sake, despite the 2001 Labour Manifesto’s assertion that the Government “have no plans to introduce University top-up fees, and have legislated to prevent their introduction.” The level of Bath’s disgust at this aberration was recently shown by the number of people who went to a recent demonstration in Bristol – a big fat five. For students who started in 2006 or 2007, it gets worse; bursaries from the University are subject to your household income being lower than £32,000 per annum. From students starting from 2008 onwards, that figure is £50,000. Effectively then, some 2006 and 2007 starters are bearing the financial hardship of top-up fees, yet because of when they started aren’t eligible for funding which people with the same household income can get from 2008. It’s scandalous. I wasn’t even aware this was the case until a run-in with the Student Finance Office, and I haven’t heard of any complaints about this quite frankly discriminatory practice since.
If we carry on with this collective attitude, it’s only ever going to get worse – and don’t kid yourself into thinking it won’t. Our very own Vice-Chancellor, Glynis Breakwell, has vocalised her desire to increase University funding, and also sat on the board which produced a CBI report suggesting students should pay more for tuition, that support provided by central government should be reduced and that a more ‘realistic’ interest rate should be set on student loans. As an aside, maybe Glynis should be reminded that there are things she could do to help increase the University’s profit margin, or at least cut costs – last year it was revealed that her salary equates to £263,000, the biggest for any Vice-Chancellor in the South West region and nearly £70,000 more than the average for someone in her position nationwide. Hintity hint hint.
Maybe this all sounds a bit Orwellian, a bit too conspiratorial, and maybe even farfetched. Indeed, it’s quite possible that the investigation I and some friends conducted last semester wouldn’t have found anything anyway. In any case, I believe it illustrates something; a union is only as active as its members, and as long as the latter remains unvocal, so will the former. If we carry on like this, then a system where students are paying five-figure annual tuition fees and education is a privilege rather than a right isn’t unfeasible. We can stop this if we show them that we’re angry. And we have every right to be.
Post new comment