Research to find a cure for cancer cancelled. The next generation of technology just a distant dream. A new project looking at causes of global terrorism rejected on funding grounds. A needy and academically excellent student turned away from university because they can’t afford the fees. Students forced to live off campus, as there is no funding to build much needed accommodation. This is the future we could potentially face as a result of higher education cuts.
Education allows us to progress and to aspire. It underpins the future progress of our country. Knowledge is the basis of a successful state. It gives us the ability to progress technologically, and leads to greater collective prosperity as well as reducing inequalities and creating a more a more egalitarian society. By neglecting education, as a society we are signing our own death warrant and asking to move backwards.
This doesn’t mean that I hate the government and want to launch an anarchist revolution against it. In fact, I broadly welcome the coalition’s austerity measures and their cuts to public services in order to re-establish fiscal discipline. It just means that I value education as a social force for good. On both an individual and collective level, education is beneficial; whether it is increasing personal earnings, creating a knowledge-based economy or simply valuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
And it should be on this basis that we stand up to the government. In some respects, the fight against tuition fees has overshadowed the greater cause: to promote and protect the value of education. Tuition fee reform is a divisive issue even among students and it would be wrong to say that there is a consensus or even a majority amongst students one way or another. However, what we can unite around is the value of education and a desire to fight for this.
Any sit-in or other form of direct action must take place on this basis. The value of education is strong enough in itself to fight about without bringing in political complications. The sit-in must remain peaceful and politically neutral. There is a danger that the occupation could simply become the preserve of those with a left of centre disposition with a political agenda to promote. The occupation must remain a positive protest against education cuts and a promotion of the value of education. It cannot descend into a general protest against government economic policy. Members of the sit-in cannot turn the event into an excuse to vent venom at the government and simply oppose the coalition government for partisan reasons.
Recent tendencies to combine anti-education funding cut campaigns with general opposition to the government’s public spending cuts are a mistake. The presence of general anti-cuts campaigners such as members of the Socialist Workers Party on campus alienates those of us who are desperate to protect and promote education, but oppose the socialist belief that we should just raise general taxation for the wealthiest and keep spending.
A large proportion of the general public, whose support this student movement requires, have already been convinced that austerity measures are necessary. So if student protests, including the Great York Sit-in, give off the impression of simply being an anti-Tory backlash against government cuts in general rather than specifically a pro-education movement, the public’s support for us will wane.
The sit-in is dependent on the goodwill of the university population. For this to continue, the occupiers need to engage with this population. The recent decision at one of the protestors’ daily meetings to conduct outreach work around the university will go someway towards this, but they must not assume a dogmatic and aggressive nature. It should be a way of raising awareness amongst students of the importance of the education that they enjoy and to try to explain how they can safeguard that. As soon as the protest becomes partisan or tries pursuing the aims of a particular political grouping, it will lose the support of non-political students who simply want to fight for a fair start to life.
And so it must be the principle of commitment to education that unites us as a collective student body and underpin any direct action we undertake. Protests must be based on the fact that we abhor government dismissal of higher education and the funding that we rightly deserve rather than being on an ideological basis. Our only ideology can be a determination to protect education, not a commitment to any other political agenda.
Dear Angus,
I feel that in the light of the article above it would have been prudent of you to actually visit the Sit-In before condemning it as a hotbed of hardline anti-government action. It is not. Had you bothered to read our demands, you would have realised that the sit-in is exclusively committed to opposing cuts to higher education, as well as opposing increases in tuition fees and the scrapping of EMA. These demands reflect our belief that:
“Education allows us to progress and to aspire. It underpins the future progress of our country. Knowledge is the basis of a successful state. It gives us the ability to progress technologically, and leads to greater collective prosperity as well as reducing inequalities and creating a more a more egalitarian society. By neglecting education, as a society we are signing our own death warrant and asking to move backwards.”
(As you so eloquently stated.)
Had you bothered to research your article properly, you would know that this is by no means a partisan movement. People of many political persuasions have been partaking in this peaceful, democratic protest. Groups such as York Stop The Cuts, part of the national Right to Work campaign have written to express their solidarity, but this endorsement by no means puts us in the category of blanket-opposing all government cuts. The accusations made in your article are misguided and incorrect, and suggest that we are merely a group of radical partisans with no agenda but that of opposing the coalition.
It appears to me that in publishing this you merely hope to persuade the student body that they would be better off having nothing to do with the sit-in – an end in fact contrary to your stated aims.
Cat,
I don’t think anywhere in my article I have descibed, or otherwise implied that the sit-in is a hotbed of ‘hardline anti-government action’. You may have interpreted it as thus but my intention was not to sound extremist. I deliberatelyt have not used provacative language such as ‘hotbed’ or even implied taht this is the case. I was simply pointing out there is an understandable risk that the protest could become politically aligned and motivated. It was a refernece to direct student action as a whole, which may or my not refer to your sit-in and was not a personal or vindictive attack.
Although you undeniably do have a strong commitment to education as you explain, I think it would be fair to say that on the whole the majority of the protestors also hold political views diametrically opposed to the current government and it’s policy programme. This isn’t to say that that is why you are undertaking your protest, however there is inevitably a risk that it may influence your protest. The thrust of my argument is taht it is important it doesn’t as fighting ona platform of pro-educatin alone is strong enough.
I have visited the site of the sit-in several times over the last week. I have also read and analysed your demands in detail. No where in my article do I criticse your demands or the fundamental basis on which you are undertkaing this form of direct action. My intention was not to dismiss or smear your protest. I broadly agree with your aims, however as a neutral I feel that I am in a a strong position to stand back and assess the action and see how it can best serve the aims of protecting education, something we both agree on.
Dear Angus,
To be clear, the views I express here are my own and are not representative of the Great York Sit-In.
I have no desire to NOT be political as I believe it is precisely the depoliticisation of individuals which is in part responsible for the mess we are in now.
At the current moment, “Politics” is somewhat of a dirty word, and something it is considered is best left to the politicians. They are the ones who deal with “Poltics” on our behalf, and “represent” us legitimately as a result of their democratic election into office. Their legitimacy derives precisely from them being representatives of the sovereign body, us the citizens. Yet what happens when the sovereign body is misrepresented? What happens when the Government makes executive decisions which are explicitly in antagonism with some of the core values of a part of that sovereign body? What happens when the Government lies, deceives, disrespects?
I may have certain radical views, but I welcome radicalism as an approach to politics which is not constrained by tradition and uncritical, all-accepting thinking. To be radical is to get to the root of things and understand them critically. As individuals, we are all too often ready to accept anything and everything; and worst of all, we don’t even recognise our own potency for action. We readily blame “the way things are” for our inability to act, our inability to say, our inability to know. Yet most often than not, “things” are the products of our own activity. The State exists through Man. Were there to be no Man, there would be no State. Yet why is it that we so often treat the State as an unshakeable force with quasi-divine powers? My intention here is simply to point out that we are all to often dangerously passive and unaware of our own potency. Whatever the values we have and the “Politics” we support, we should do so in full knowledge of the nature of our position and the implications and presuppositions it holds.
Furthermore, you mention your being “a neutral”. I would like to make a point about this. Although you yourself may not consider yourself to be Political, your behaviour does not result in actual Political neutrality, but rather sustains the Neo-Liberal state. The latter is essentially based on the concentration of Political power in the hands of the State, and the depoliticisation of individuals. The State concentrates its Political power in order to regulate the market and maintain the rule of law. Within the State-guaranteed framework, individuals act as rational economic agents. They must not be Political agents. So in a considerable way, your attitude is concurrent with that of an ideal Neo-Liberal agent. And that is precisely the behaviour we are all encouraged to have.
Now it may be the case that you support Neo-Liberalism and its State form; such a position I entirely respect. I cannot and do not claim to know any better than the next person what the “Right” way of doing things is. But I am fairly certain that whatever our views, they should be adequately founded and understood (by ourselves, that is). I struggle to feel similar respect for those who simply claim to “not do Politics”.
I for one am intent on as best as possible leading the life I choose; a life of intensity, of passion, of creation, of emotion, of mind-blowing experience. Being “a neutral” just won’t do.
“You don’t drown by falling in the water; you drown by staying there” – Edwin Louis Cole
This comment is simply a reaction to your advocacy of Political neutrality and, as I made clear from the beginning, should not be seen as going any way towards demonstrating that the Sit-In is partisan or opposed to all Government cuts.
I readily welcome your reply.
Thank you Angus for your breathtaking article, it has inspired me to begin writing my own article about the risk a standing army poses to the security of the democratically elected government. I am hoping this will be my big break.
As someone who has never participated in any military action ever in my entire life whatsoever I feel I have some illuminating ideas to throw out there. The army are there to protect the realm from invasion and I support that, but that doesn’t mean I want to set up a military junta with it spelling the end of civil liberties and bring in an age of abject poverty for all but our supreme generalisimo and his immediate cabal of loyal cronies. I think we should be vigilant to make sure this does not happen.
Some may say I’m just a lone prophet yelling out in the wilderness but I just think people have to know and it’s my duty to let them know, I’m sure you understand.
“Research to find a cure for cancer cancelled. The next generation of technology just a distant dream.” –
that is not strictly true I’m afraid: the govenmental funding bodies and industry provide the money for research not the university, who do not fund most of the research carried out at the university. Ironically whilst the USA, Germany and Japan are increasing funding into research to reignite their economies our government is cutting back on the resources provided to our funding bodies.
@Crazy Nick – I accept that this is correcta nd I was wrong on the specifics of funding allcoation. But it still stands that research will be jeopardised as if there are cuts to STEM degrees the number able to pursue post grad research in this number will be seriously reduced.
Angus,
I feel moved to respond to this particularly puzzling article of yours. Whilst Cat Wayland, above, is correct in saying of the York sit-in that ” this is by no means a partisan movement”, it is also clear that the changes to tuition fees, along with public sector reform in general, are supported by those with right-leaning political outlooks and opposed by those on the left. This is only natural as the divide between right and left often comes down to the economic issue of privatisation vs. public ownership.
Thus, whilst having witnessed first hand that there are a multitude of people taking part in the sit-in at the University of York, it also holds that, generally, there is a left slant and that those with ardent left-wing views will often form the core of resistance to shameful education ‘reforms’ such as those that have been forced through by the coalition government.
This article is anathema to the act of opposing crap government policy. The ‘goodwill of the university population’, as you put it, is not known to put on great protests. Only those who have experience of protesting, peacefully and effectively, will be able to organise such events. You only have to look at the 30th November protest in York, the most successful for years by all accounts, to see this.
Your article seems to promote the opposition by passivity. This will achieve nothing but apathy amongst students and the same old ‘told you so, lazy students’ derisory rhetoric from the wider public. In a wholly personal capacity, I have to oppose the attitude of opposition by passivity which I detect in your article.
Scott.