- Canais RSS
Campaign for the Public University
Actualizado: fai 23 horas 11 min
By David Ridley
Margaret Thatcher once said ‘There is no alternative’, a mantra which has since been taken up with force by David Cameron and the Coalition. But things are changing, things are always changing, and alternatives may be appearing on the horizon again after almost 30 years of neoliberal hegemony. Austerity is losing credibility (not just in the UK but in Europe as well), and the 2015 General Election presents an opportunity to return the question of alternatives to public debate.
In higher education there is a growing consensus that the Coalition’s introduction of £9000 tuition fees and equivalent loans was a mistake. The net result will be that the new funding system will end up costing more than the system it replaced – this means that the Coalition policy has failed even on its own terms (see my other article for more details).
Originally put forward by people like Andrew McGettigan (see book, The Great University Gamble and Critical Education blog), this critique now forms an important part of Labour’s campaign to win the 2015 election. Although the seventh interim report of their Zero-based review of ‘every pound the government spends from the bottom up’ doesn’t actually commit to any specific policy if Labour were to win the election, Ed Milliband’s recently released pledge card vows to reduce tuition fees to £6000.
Without going into too much detail, the reduction in fees will impact upon even current students, taking effect in September 2016, and this reduction in fees is complemented by an increase in the threshold for maintenance grants (up to £42,000 household income). There have been some knee-jerk reactions from Vice-Chancellors who are afraid that this will produce a funding crisis for universities now reliant on £9000 fees, but in perhaps the most radical part of Labour’s proposals, there is a possibility of a commitment to matching the loss in funding through increases in block grant funding.*
We should perhaps recall an article that Ed Milliband wrote in 2010 for The Guardian, in which he was scathing about the marketisation of HE, writing that ‘the supremacy of the market has extended too far into areas that should not be defined by commodity and exchange.’ In response to the Browne Report, Milliband proposed to write an alternative review, one which would advocate a graduate tax to fund the expansion of HE. This review has never appeared, but this article perhaps indicates a long-term plan that Milliband has been harbouring all along.
Either way, the issue of funding is crucial to the politics and future of higher education. With the election in mind but also thinking beyond May 2015, four possible ways of funding mass higher education have emerged from this debate.
The first option, represented by the Coalition, is that of tuition fees and loans, a regime that seems likely only to intensify if the Tories are re-elected. In the lead up to the election the Tories have been quiet regarding higher education, but the reforms so far, interpreted within the long-term marketisation plan, indicate that eventually the tuition fee cap would be abolished altogether, allowing elite UK universities to begin the race to match the £30,000 annual tuition fees of top US universities like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
For students, most worryingly, the Tories seem likely to exploit the Terms and Conditions of the student-loans contract, most likely by freezing the repayment threshold.* Not only that, but if critics of marketisation are correct, then the repayment crisis could be used by the government to justify all manner of extreme measures, such as selling-off the loan book altogether or lowering the income repayment threshold.
Put together, the Coalition reforms form a thinly veiled attempt to cash in the publicly accumulated value of higher education, continuing the privatisation of everything begun by Thatcher in the 1980s (helped on by New Labour). The reforms are not so much a plan to reduce the public deficit but to revive a stagnating capitalist economy that has capital stored up but is running out of places to invest it. Thus the purely economic interest that lies behind the marketisation of higher education is revealed – it will be the shareholders and fat-cat managers that will benefit from these reforms, not students and the general public.
Within this context, the Labour proposal to reduce the fees to £6000 seems quite tame, and we have to remember that this would leave the existing system of tuition fees and loans intact. Whether or not Milliband plans to abolish tuition fees and loans altogether, replacing this system with a graduate tax, is not clear at this point.
As an alternative to tuition fess and loans, a graduate tax could be more progressive (although this would depend on repayment conditions and separate arrangements for maintenance loans as well as fees), as students would not be ‘priced-out’ of higher education and wouldn’t have to pay interest on a loan they perhaps couldn’t afford in the first place.* But the ideological essence of the graduate tax is the same as that of tuition fees: higher education is an individual (economic) good, and the sole beneficiary, i.e. the graduate, should pay for these individual (economic) benefits.
In terms of benefits and interests, the Universities and Colleges Union’s proposal to fund higher education through raising corporate income tax moves the debate towards recognising the wider social benefits of higher education. According to the report, the UK has the lowest corporate income tax rate of all G7 countries. The report claimed that raising the UK rate to the G7 average would in 2010 have generated ‘almost £3.9 billion for higher education—more than enough to abolish all tuition fees’, although following the increase of fees it would cost £2.7 billion to lower fees from £9K to £6K.* The argument here is that business should ‘pay its way for the numerous benefits it gets from UK higher education.’
However the UCU’s idea to fund higher education through corporation tax, although admirable and certainly progressive, not only retains the narrow focus on economic benefits (although on a societal level), but also leaves the HE sector more susceptible to the (indirect) influence of corporate interests, which would seem to have a “legitimate” stake in influencing HE policy (especially in terms of research). As well as establishing a sustainable and fair source of funding for mass higher education, we must also be wary of attempts to co-opt the knowledge and social influence of universities (in terms of educating the next generation of socially influential graduates) for purposes other than the public good.
The final alternative is simply to return to a commitment to publicly fund higher education through general taxation. The UCU’s proposal would be an important part of this commitment, in order to create the money for the continuing expansion of higher education, but such moves would have to be a part of a larger progressive political project, one that is generally committed to redirecting wealth downwards. Reducing government spending for expensive military projects such as Trident would also free up money for more important public services such as the NHS and free education at all levels.
As Doreen Massey and Michael Rustin have recently argued in the latest instalment of the Kilburn Manifesto, ‘Displacing Neoliberalism’, recalling Antonio Gramsci, we may be ‘in a situation where a ‘war of position’ needs to be prepared for’, in which ‘no sudden or rapid changes in the balance of power are feasible, but where nevertheless gains over the long term can be made.’ They argue that the ‘value of the victory of a Labour or a Labour-led coalition government in May 2015 is not that it will by itself transform politics or society, but that it can establish a situation in which new thinking and new kinds of political action may again become possible.’
Strategically, therefore, we might want to vote Labour in the coming elections. Recent victories against tuition fees and loans in Germany and Chile show that neoliberal reforms can be reversed. Like the CDU in Germany, Labour could perhaps be pushed to such a position. We need to be critical of election promises and vote with open eyes, but we also need to look beyond the election. The key is to have the right long-term vision for higher education grounded in the public interest, and to work together – students, academics, non-academic workers, unions and politicians – to build a strong and sustainable wider movement to make sure that vision is achieved.
* Article amended 23 March 2015, following comments by Andrew McGettigan
Many will be disappointed that Ed Miliband’s proposal to cap the student contribution to fees at £6000 does not go far enough in challenging the Coalition Government’s new fee regime. Others have criticised them on the grounds that they are regressive given the returns of higher education to some graduates, although it is striking that those who make this argument are not otherwise committed to progressive taxation and addressing the wider inequalities in which higher education is implicated. There is a strong case for doing something about inequality and it is continuous with maintaining high quality public services, including public higher education. For this reason, it is appropriate to offer two cheers for the following reasons:
- The proposals re-establish the principle that similar courses at different institutions should be similarly funded. This is positive in terms of equity and social justice, given that selective institutions are currently socially selective.
- The proposals recognise the public value of higher education and reintroduce the HEFCE block teaching grant for all subjects.
- The re-introduction of the block grant represents a significant obstacle to the entry of for-profit providers and the dismantling of the idea of the university as somewhere where teaching and research are integral activities.
- The proposals address the longer-run unsustainability of the present system and begin to block the pressure from some Vice Chancellors for the lifting of the fee cap and making changes to the income threshold and other payment terms of the current student loans arrangements.
- The proposals are costed and begin, at last, a proper political debate about the values and value of public higher education.
We suggest that this debate should address the nine propositions about the value of public higher education put forward by the campaign for the Public University and other campaigning groups in response to the Coalition Government’s reduction of its purposes to the promotion of economic growth and investment in human capital.
Higher education serves public benefits as well as private ones. These require financial support if these benefits are to continue to be provided.
Public universities are vital to build and maintain confidence in the public debate necessary to a properly functioning democracy.
Public universities have a social mission, contributing to the amelioration of social inequality, which is the corollary of the promotion of social mobility.
Public higher education is part of a generational contract in which an older generation invests in the wellbeing of future generations that will support them in turn.
Public institutions providing similar programmes of study should be funded at a similar level.
Education cannot be treated as a simple consumer good; consumer sovereignty is an inappropriate means of placing students at the heart of the system.
Training in skills is not the same as a university education. While the first is valuable in its own terms, a university education provides more than technical training. This should be clearly recognised in the title of a university.
The university is a community made up of diverse disciplines as well as different activities of teaching, research and external collaboration. These activities are maintained by academics, managers, administrators and a range of support staff, all of whom contribute to what is distinctive about the university as a community.
Universities are not only global institutions. They also serve their local and regional communities and their different traditions and contexts are important.
Read a wider discussion of these propositions, In Defence of Public Higher Education, here.
by Adriano Mérola Marotta
When the University of Sussex indefinitely suspended five studentsin 2013 for taking part in an occupation of its conference centre, the public backlash could not have been predicted. A 10,000-strong petition galvanised the university community and attracted the attention of world leading human right lawyers who offered to represent the ‘Sussex Five’ pro bono.
The suspensions were dropped but ‘cautions’ against the students remained. This week the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) ruled that the university had been wrong, forcing it to compensate the students and formally apologise.Adriano Mérola Marotta was one of those students.
Vice-chancellors like Sussex’s Michael Farthing rarely disclose their true intentions when they suspend and discipline students for protesting. In the case of the suspension of the Sussex Five, the senior management team hid behind fallacious claims that we posed a threat to the well-being of staff and students. When the community came to our defence and threatened strikes and occupations, the university quickly buckled under pressure. For the un-elected and un-accountable managers of the neoliberal university, the effect of fear is more important than consistency or notional principles of justice.
The intended effect of our suspensions was for fear and insecurity to undermine the resolve of future protestors – sending a message to striking staff and their supportive students. That message was clear:“If you speak up, we will lash out with everything we have.”
It was not the first time the vice-chancellor had followed this route. In 2010, following a large and determined movement in opposition to cuts and funding restructuring, the Sussex Six were victimised as the ‘leaders’ of the movement. Then, as now, the community came to their defence and they were eventually reinstated. The vice-chancellor has little aversion or regard for criminalising dissent.
In more recent years, the senior management team was again faced with a powerful and heterogeneous movement opposed to the top-down neoliberalisation of the university. Striking at the envisaged ‘heads’ of the movement, the university hoped to decapitate and conquer the burgeoning coalition. Like the Lernaean Hydra, every decapitated head was replaced by multiple new ones. The power of determined students and workers showed that repression does not weaken their resolve. In fact the movement’s response was stronger and more confident than ever before.
When the OIA announced that Sussex had singled us out without justification and had unreasonably suspended us, we knew we had emerged victorious. Our defence has been vindicated, and the university’s actions admonished. Our victory ought to be celebrated, because all victories of justice warrant celebration. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that we never posed a threat to students or staff, and that we in no way undermined the university’s health and safety policy. The OIA found the university to have unreasonably prolonged the disciplinary process through the apparent ‘lowering’ of the charges brought against us. The last point, in our opinion, was done in order to remove our right to legal representation.
Yet, if one reads the university’s statement on the ruling, there is no mention of our victory. Similarly, the OIA’s findings fail to acknowledge the issue of why we were singled out, why the university prolonged the process and why they went to such extravagant lengths to find us guilty. The OIA ignored this element because the response is political and independent adjudicators ‘don’t do politics’.
Moments of – and movements in – struggle are not defined by the actions of individuals or their ‘leaders’ but by the collective community itself. We were never the leaders of the anti-privatisation movement at Sussex. The only leaders of that movement were the masses of affected staff and the rest of the community which supported them. The people who worked endlessly to strengthen the resistance to the privatisation of 235 jobs and the people who rallied to our defence when we were victimised are the true leaders of the movement.
As the government continues the onslaught of privatisation in education and senior managers construct the university in a neoliberal image, our collective movements are needed more than ever. Rather than looking at ‘leaders’ or elected representatives for resistance and change, we need to look at ourselves and our colleagues for change. Although I may write articles calling for Michael Farthing’s resignation, this will never come from my actions alone.
Whilst students on Warwick campus battle the presence of heavy-handed police, the only response possible is that of solidarity and escalation. When students continue the much-needed fight for free, high-quality and public education on 31 January in cities across the country, the only response should be unity and confidence. When political parties make grandiose promises during the general election, the only response is to continue fighting and continue believing in a different world and challenging power. Cuts will come from whoever wins in May. The free education we are fighting for will not be won at the ballot box.
A truly democratic society requires an empowered and democratic citizenry. The changes we want to see will not come from idolised leaders but from the strength of ourselves and our colleagues. Now is the time to force the neoliberal vice-chancellors to resign and reclaim the possibility of free, accessible, high-quality and public education for all. They won’t give up without a fight, but we know better than to be scared of their reprisals.
¡Hasta la Victoria!
Co-posted with Novara Media
Dutch colleagues, Willem Halffman* and Hans Radder*, criticise the occupation of the University by a ‘wolf-like’ management who no longer administer it in relation to its intrinsic values, but according to market and bureaucratic principles. Meanwhile, academics act like docile sheep, cooperating with each new initiative while writing criticisms and making appeals, but to little avail against relentless claims that there is no alternative. For Halffman and Radders, there is an alternative. But it isn’t a reassertion of the traditional university values and a return to an ‘ivory tower’ of the past. The alternative to the management occupied university is the public university aimed at the common good: Workers of all universities: unite!
*Willem Halffman is a lecturer at the Radboud University’s Institute for Science, Innovation and Society in Nijmegen and has been working temporarily at various Dutch universities for the past twenty years. Until recently he was the coordinator of the National Research School for Science Technology and Modern Culture. He published, among other things, on scientific policy advice and on the role of knowledge in environmental policy (see halffman.net for details).
*Hans Radder is professor emeritus in philosophy of science and technology at the Faculty of Philosophy of VU University Amsterdam. He edited the volume The commodification of academic research. Science and the modern university (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), and is co-editor (with Alfred Nordmann and Gregor Schiemann) of Science transformed?Debating claims of an epochal break (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011).