Message of support from the Dept. of Philosophy
Here is a message of support from the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method. A big "Thank You" to all who signed it! It goes:
We in the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method would like to express our support for the LSE student occupation, which opposes the proposed package of radical reforms to further and higher education. These reforms will see the tripling of tuition fees for students in England, extreme cuts to undergraduate teaching budgets nationwide – including a total withdrawal of LSE’s block teaching grant – and the complete removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance.
Our solidarity with the occupation is two-fold. First of all, there is the issue of how universities are to be funded. The proposed substitution of the block teaching grant with revenue from undergraduate tuition fees is tantamount to subjecting higher education to market forces, which will allow the government to look the other way while arts and humanities courses are forced to close due to lack of funding. The proposals for special state protection of STEM subjects reveals bias in the coalition government’s academic priorities, and belies their alleged confidence in the market to keep arts and humanities departments afloat.
Secondly, there is the issue of student access. Under the proposals in the Browne report, graduates of three-year courses will leave university with debts approaching £40,000. (The poorest 18,000 students, who under the current proposals are set to receive unsatisfactory state bursaries, will still leave with debts of over £30,000.) We expect that, in the face of such financial disincentives, students from low-income backgrounds will be disproportionately discouraged from attending university. Self-deselection in undergraduate applications on these grounds will lead to an unacceptable distortion of the socio-economic makeup of the student body. The removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance will make this situation significantly worse: it will prevent the poorest able school-leavers from continuing on to A-level courses, and obtaining the necessary qualifications for a university place.
We credit the students of the occupation for their proactive organizing and continued dedication to forestalling the proposed changes, and wish them all the best for Thursday’s protest and beyond.
Signed:
Pablo García Arabéhéty
Professor Luc Bovens
Professor Nancy Cartwright
Adam Caulton
Dr Franz Dietrich
Dr Karin Edvardsson-Björnberg
Johannes Himmelreich
Jeroen Jonker
Professor Christian List
Becky Matthams
Maria Paz Mendez Hodes
Dr Kristina Musholt
Claire O'Donnell
Dr Armin Schulz
M D Sheren
Andrew Simon
Dr Katie Steele
Natalia Villalpando-Paez
Dr Charlotte Werndl
Prof John Worrall
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
The LSE Occupation meets with Howard Davies
This morning a meeting was held between six members of the occupation and Howard Davies (LSE Director), Adrian Hall (Secretary and Director of Administration) and George Gaskell (LSE Pro-Director).
Our discussion agreed on some common ground and we are now hopeful for the creation of a joint statement between the School, the UCU and the Students’ Union.
Our discussion agreed on some common ground and we are now hopeful for the creation of a joint statement between the School, the UCU and the Students’ Union.
Demonstrate at Lynne Featherstone's constituency office today
NUS has called a demonstration at Equality Minister Lynne Featherstone's Constituency office for 11am tomorrow in protest at the rise in tuition fees' unfair impact upon women.
It has been revealed that Lynne Featherstone is considering not voting for the government's proposal on tuition fees.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3263676/Three-top-Liberal-Democrats-set-to-defy-Nick-Clegg.html
Let's tell her in person to honour her pledge to students on tuition fees!
If we can persuade Lib Dem ministers like Lynne Featherstone to vote against the government, WE CAN STOP THE TREBLING OF TUITION FEES.
ASSEMBLE AT WOOD GREEN (JUBILEE LINE) UNDERGROUND STATION TOMORROW AT 10.45AM. BRING BANNERS!
Her office can be found at:
62 High Street
LONDON
N8 7NX
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=&q=62+High+Street+LONDON+N8+7NX&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB348GB348&ie=UTF-8
If you need any more info, call Christy on 07584070010.
Yours in solidarity,
LSE Occupation
It has been revealed that Lynne Featherstone is considering not voting for the government's proposal on tuition fees.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3263676/Three-top-Liberal-Democrats-set-to-defy-Nick-Clegg.html
Let's tell her in person to honour her pledge to students on tuition fees!
If we can persuade Lib Dem ministers like Lynne Featherstone to vote against the government, WE CAN STOP THE TREBLING OF TUITION FEES.
ASSEMBLE AT WOOD GREEN (JUBILEE LINE) UNDERGROUND STATION TOMORROW AT 10.45AM. BRING BANNERS!
Her office can be found at:
62 High Street
LONDON
N8 7NX
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=&q=62+High+Street+LONDON+N8+7NX&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB348GB348&ie=UTF-8
If you need any more info, call Christy on 07584070010.
Yours in solidarity,
LSE Occupation
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Correspondence with Howard Davies
Howard Davies today repsonded to the letter sent from the LSE Occupation. Further to this correspondence Howard Davies has agreed to a meeting with members of the occupation tomorrow (Wednesday) morning.
Please see below for all correspondence between the occupation and Howard Davies thus far:
The original letter sent to Howard Davies is as follows:
3 December 2010
Demands:
1. Joint open statement by the LSE Students' Union, University and College Union (UCU), and Howard Davies (Director of the LSE) against the cuts, fees, and the attack on the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).
2. No victimisation of Students or Lecturers involved in the occupation or any protests against the cuts.
Public Statement from the Occupiers of the Vera Anstey Suite, London School of Economics:
We, the occupiers of the Vera Anstey Suite, have been dismayed by the Directorate of the LSE’s failure to speak out against the coalition’s proposals to cut funding for further and higher education and raise tuition fees. We believe that this inaction is betraying both LSE’s staff and students and the founders of the school, who were committed to the pursuit of knowledge and to making this pursuit universally accessible. As the school’s own website states, the founders envisioned an institution dedicated to the betterment of society through the creation of social equality. The LSE prides – and promotes – itself on a history of progressive engagement with social policy. As Ralf Dahrendorf, former director of the school, describes in his history of LSE, “One of the distinguishing marks of LSE was (…) that it never remained silent.” (1995: viii). Yet in the current debate surrounding the future of higher education in this country, the silence from LSE has been deafening.
The proposed cuts to education and increase in tuition fees will make education less accessible. Education should be universally available by right and not according to privilege. We believe that its core aim should be to enable the critical, creative and independent thinking that is essential for any healthy democracy. Since the mid-1980s we have witnessed a marketisation of higher education that has steadily taken us away from this conception of education. We believe that commodification privileges an assessment of disciplines on the basis of profitability and students on the basis of employability. As members of a social sciences institution we are particularly outraged that these cuts aggressively discriminate against the arts, humanities and social sciences, showing an unacceptable disregard for these disciplines’ immense contribution to society. We strongly oppose this ideological attack on education, which is part of a wider assault on our public services and all those who use them and work in them.
It has been claimed that our opposition is based on a misapprehension of what these reforms mean. We reject this patronising claim. David Cameron and Nick Clegg argue that by not paying fees up front, education will become more accessible to people from low- and middle-income backgrounds. But by cutting the teaching budget and transferring financial responsibility onto the shoulders of individuals, the coalition’s proposals will gravely constrain opportunities and lock graduates into a life of debt. As many school and college students have already made clear, this acts as a disincentive to pursuing higher education. Far from promoting social mobility, the proposals will further entrench existing patterns of exclusion, particularly across lines of class, gender and ethnicity. We urge MPs of all parties, hundreds of whom signed personal pledges to vote against any rise in tuition fees, to oppose these regressive proposals.
We have been galvanised by the many messages of support that we have received from individuals and students’ collectives, trade unions and other groups across the world. We stand in solidarity with all those who are facing attacks on their capacity to realise lives of dignity, fulfillment and possibility. We reject the claim that cuts are inevitable. We urge everyone: workers and the unemployed, young people and the elderly, to stand with students and fight against these cuts. We demand the right to create alternative futures.
Howard Davies' response (receved Tuesday 7th December) is viewable in a PDF here-
http://www.lsesu.com/asset/news/7963/Demand-reply-from-Howard.pdf
In turn we responded with this letter later the same day:
Dear Howard,
Thank you for your response to the occupation’s demands.
Although we recognise and are thankful for the efforts that you have already made to make the case for funding social sciences, we do not agree that they are forceful enough.
Nor do we agree that they are extensive enough; our demands clearly include the proposed fee hike and the education cuts beyond the loss of our teaching grant. Saying this, we believe that there is more common ground between us than you have recognised. This occupation’s demands are about national issues, and therefore the Freeze the Fees policy is not an obstacle to our working together.
It is clear that the private letters and your appearances on news programmes have not made a strong enough impact. We welcome your offer to make the private letters public, but do not believe that this would constitute ‘doing your all’ to prevent these cuts and the fee hike. The value of a joint public statement is clear: it would send an extremely strong message to the coalition government that this institution, its students and its academics are collectively uniting in order to protect our public education system.
The stance of the School at this point is critical; we have seen pressure building all across the country, from school students walking out, to universities forcefully speaking out against the government’s proposals for Higher Education. LSE’s coordinated and collective voice is currently absent from this movement.
We have attempted to engage with you over this extraordinarily important issue and you call for collaboration in your recent student email. It is therefore disappointing to be told through your statement and in person on Houghton St that you do not see this as an opportunity to stand up in unity with students and academics for LSE’s progressive ideals. To borrow a phrase from your statement, we find it ‘inconvenient’ to have a director who is not courageous enough to represent the body and values of our university. UCU has now been in contact with you, and have voiced clear support for our “reasonable” demands. The motion that mandates the Students’ Union to support the current occupation saw more votes cast for a motion than any other motion in at least the past decade. In light of this, by continuing to refuse to work with us, you risk losing the confidence of large sections of our university body.
However, we have to work with what we’ve got, so we request a meeting with you this evening to discuss this issue further, and should collaboration not be forthcoming, we will be left with no option but to escalate our tactics.
Your Sincerely,
LSE Occupation
Please see below for all correspondence between the occupation and Howard Davies thus far:
The original letter sent to Howard Davies is as follows:
3 December 2010
Demands:
1. Joint open statement by the LSE Students' Union, University and College Union (UCU), and Howard Davies (Director of the LSE) against the cuts, fees, and the attack on the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).
2. No victimisation of Students or Lecturers involved in the occupation or any protests against the cuts.
Public Statement from the Occupiers of the Vera Anstey Suite, London School of Economics:
We, the occupiers of the Vera Anstey Suite, have been dismayed by the Directorate of the LSE’s failure to speak out against the coalition’s proposals to cut funding for further and higher education and raise tuition fees. We believe that this inaction is betraying both LSE’s staff and students and the founders of the school, who were committed to the pursuit of knowledge and to making this pursuit universally accessible. As the school’s own website states, the founders envisioned an institution dedicated to the betterment of society through the creation of social equality. The LSE prides – and promotes – itself on a history of progressive engagement with social policy. As Ralf Dahrendorf, former director of the school, describes in his history of LSE, “One of the distinguishing marks of LSE was (…) that it never remained silent.” (1995: viii). Yet in the current debate surrounding the future of higher education in this country, the silence from LSE has been deafening.
The proposed cuts to education and increase in tuition fees will make education less accessible. Education should be universally available by right and not according to privilege. We believe that its core aim should be to enable the critical, creative and independent thinking that is essential for any healthy democracy. Since the mid-1980s we have witnessed a marketisation of higher education that has steadily taken us away from this conception of education. We believe that commodification privileges an assessment of disciplines on the basis of profitability and students on the basis of employability. As members of a social sciences institution we are particularly outraged that these cuts aggressively discriminate against the arts, humanities and social sciences, showing an unacceptable disregard for these disciplines’ immense contribution to society. We strongly oppose this ideological attack on education, which is part of a wider assault on our public services and all those who use them and work in them.
It has been claimed that our opposition is based on a misapprehension of what these reforms mean. We reject this patronising claim. David Cameron and Nick Clegg argue that by not paying fees up front, education will become more accessible to people from low- and middle-income backgrounds. But by cutting the teaching budget and transferring financial responsibility onto the shoulders of individuals, the coalition’s proposals will gravely constrain opportunities and lock graduates into a life of debt. As many school and college students have already made clear, this acts as a disincentive to pursuing higher education. Far from promoting social mobility, the proposals will further entrench existing patterns of exclusion, particularly across lines of class, gender and ethnicity. We urge MPs of all parties, hundreds of whom signed personal pledges to vote against any rise in tuition fees, to oppose these regressive proposals.
We have been galvanised by the many messages of support that we have received from individuals and students’ collectives, trade unions and other groups across the world. We stand in solidarity with all those who are facing attacks on their capacity to realise lives of dignity, fulfillment and possibility. We reject the claim that cuts are inevitable. We urge everyone: workers and the unemployed, young people and the elderly, to stand with students and fight against these cuts. We demand the right to create alternative futures.
Howard Davies' response (receved Tuesday 7th December) is viewable in a PDF here-
http://www.lsesu.com/asset/news/7963/Demand-reply-from-Howard.pdf
In turn we responded with this letter later the same day:
Dear Howard,
Thank you for your response to the occupation’s demands.
Although we recognise and are thankful for the efforts that you have already made to make the case for funding social sciences, we do not agree that they are forceful enough.
Nor do we agree that they are extensive enough; our demands clearly include the proposed fee hike and the education cuts beyond the loss of our teaching grant. Saying this, we believe that there is more common ground between us than you have recognised. This occupation’s demands are about national issues, and therefore the Freeze the Fees policy is not an obstacle to our working together.
It is clear that the private letters and your appearances on news programmes have not made a strong enough impact. We welcome your offer to make the private letters public, but do not believe that this would constitute ‘doing your all’ to prevent these cuts and the fee hike. The value of a joint public statement is clear: it would send an extremely strong message to the coalition government that this institution, its students and its academics are collectively uniting in order to protect our public education system.
The stance of the School at this point is critical; we have seen pressure building all across the country, from school students walking out, to universities forcefully speaking out against the government’s proposals for Higher Education. LSE’s coordinated and collective voice is currently absent from this movement.
We have attempted to engage with you over this extraordinarily important issue and you call for collaboration in your recent student email. It is therefore disappointing to be told through your statement and in person on Houghton St that you do not see this as an opportunity to stand up in unity with students and academics for LSE’s progressive ideals. To borrow a phrase from your statement, we find it ‘inconvenient’ to have a director who is not courageous enough to represent the body and values of our university. UCU has now been in contact with you, and have voiced clear support for our “reasonable” demands. The motion that mandates the Students’ Union to support the current occupation saw more votes cast for a motion than any other motion in at least the past decade. In light of this, by continuing to refuse to work with us, you risk losing the confidence of large sections of our university body.
However, we have to work with what we’ve got, so we request a meeting with you this evening to discuss this issue further, and should collaboration not be forthcoming, we will be left with no option but to escalate our tactics.
Your Sincerely,
LSE Occupation
Monday, 6 December 2010
The cockiness of Universities Minister David Willetts
We strongly object to David Willetts' utterances with regard to a new scheme to fund poor students’ first and maybe even second year at university as patronising and deceptive. The scheme would purportedly bring with it the state paying one year's fees of any student eligible for free school meals who is accepted for a place at university. On top of that, universities charging more than £6,000 a year in fees would be required to fund a further year's tuition for these students.
However, the funding for this scheme would come from the £150m National Scholarship Programme, which is money already set aside for education. There will be no additional funds made available by the government for education – instead money will just be re-distributed. This might be acceptable if it was at least a top-down re-distribution, yet it is particularly poor students who are targeted by the scholarship programmes. Thus, the scheme amounts to giving students on one side what has been taken away from them on the other side. The exact amount of money, which will be used to cover poor students’ tuition fees, will be withdrawn from the scholarship programmes. For poor students, thus, the balance breaks even.
Against this backdrop, the scheme presented by Willetts in order to make rising tuition fees palatable appears to us just as another attempt of window-dressing. We are disgusted and appalled in view of the government’s audacity to force through their devastating reforms for the education and public sector, underscored by comments such as “[t]here is absolutely no reason why students that are worried should have any genuine concerns about the proposals” (David Willetts).[1] Such statements will not quiet us down – on the contrary, they will fuel our determination to fight.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11920628
However, the funding for this scheme would come from the £150m National Scholarship Programme, which is money already set aside for education. There will be no additional funds made available by the government for education – instead money will just be re-distributed. This might be acceptable if it was at least a top-down re-distribution, yet it is particularly poor students who are targeted by the scholarship programmes. Thus, the scheme amounts to giving students on one side what has been taken away from them on the other side. The exact amount of money, which will be used to cover poor students’ tuition fees, will be withdrawn from the scholarship programmes. For poor students, thus, the balance breaks even.
Against this backdrop, the scheme presented by Willetts in order to make rising tuition fees palatable appears to us just as another attempt of window-dressing. We are disgusted and appalled in view of the government’s audacity to force through their devastating reforms for the education and public sector, underscored by comments such as “[t]here is absolutely no reason why students that are worried should have any genuine concerns about the proposals” (David Willetts).[1] Such statements will not quiet us down – on the contrary, they will fuel our determination to fight.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11920628
Department of Anthropology Support
Statement in Support of LSE Student Occupation
The Anthropology Dept supports the LSE student occupation and the national campaigns against raising the cap on fees, cutting teaching budgets for humanities and social sciences, and getting rid of the Education Maintenance Allowance.
The coalition government's attack on access to education for all, and the withdrawal of support for an internationally respected sector at precisely the time when other countries are increasing that support, is unacceptable. The impact of the proposed HE and other public sector cuts will not be felt equally by everyone. Less well off people and certain minorities are thus less likely to be able to pay back loans and are less likely to take 'risks' with their education. Speaking as a department that draws 78% of its undergraduates from state schools, this is not the elitist future we want for young people in the UK.
Raising the price of education at the same time as freezing public sector salaries and slashing benefits reinforces inequality in various ways. We feel concerned that few will be encouraged to go to university if tough decisions about paying fees have to be made by families already struggling to make ends meet.
For these reasons, and many more, the Anthropology Dept supports the occupation, NUS and UCU protests against raising fees and cutting public sector budgets.
Supported by the following members of the Anthropology Dept, December 6th, 2010 (with acknowledgements to the Gender Institute for inspiration and for some of the wording):
Deborah James, Martha Mundy, Fenella Cannell, Mukulika Banerjee, Laura Bear, Stephan Feuchtwang, Michael Scott, Yanina Hinrichsen, Harry Walker, Heonik Kwon, Andrew Sanchez, Thomas Grisaffi,Mathijs Pelkmans
The Anthropology Dept supports the LSE student occupation and the national campaigns against raising the cap on fees, cutting teaching budgets for humanities and social sciences, and getting rid of the Education Maintenance Allowance.
The coalition government's attack on access to education for all, and the withdrawal of support for an internationally respected sector at precisely the time when other countries are increasing that support, is unacceptable. The impact of the proposed HE and other public sector cuts will not be felt equally by everyone. Less well off people and certain minorities are thus less likely to be able to pay back loans and are less likely to take 'risks' with their education. Speaking as a department that draws 78% of its undergraduates from state schools, this is not the elitist future we want for young people in the UK.
Raising the price of education at the same time as freezing public sector salaries and slashing benefits reinforces inequality in various ways. We feel concerned that few will be encouraged to go to university if tough decisions about paying fees have to be made by families already struggling to make ends meet.
For these reasons, and many more, the Anthropology Dept supports the occupation, NUS and UCU protests against raising fees and cutting public sector budgets.
Supported by the following members of the Anthropology Dept, December 6th, 2010 (with acknowledgements to the Gender Institute for inspiration and for some of the wording):
Deborah James, Martha Mundy, Fenella Cannell, Mukulika Banerjee, Laura Bear, Stephan Feuchtwang, Michael Scott, Yanina Hinrichsen, Harry Walker, Heonik Kwon, Andrew Sanchez, Thomas Grisaffi,Mathijs Pelkmans
Sunday, 5 December 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)