The following post was written in June 2009:
To all Sussex Linguistics supporters,
Today, University Senate, the highest academic decision making body within the University, met and discussed Linguistics. Even after they had agreed to put it on the agenda, USSU and staff had to fight to make sure it got discussed and that staff were briefed.
For the first time since the decision was announced, a full and comprehensive rationale with statistics and evidence was given, information that had been never made available even after constant requests for it. Senate members in the face of this felt they had no choice but to accept the University’s rationale, however this wasn’t the end of the discussion.
Senoir managements actions in handling the situation were widely criticised by academics, staff and students, lining up to pick apart the rationale they gave. From the lack of scrutiny, no consultation and no meeting minutes to refusing to talk with students and the resulting escalation of the situation, senate members openly voiced their anger. The committee were particulary insisantant to state this was a perfect case of how NOT to make important decisions. There was also large support to ensure that no students will face any disciplinary action over the camp.
Though Linguistics has not been reinstated as a degree program, we have saved Linguistics as the University is now committed to maintaining the course for the indefinite future as an essential element to English Language and other indisciplinary elements. Now they are looking into how to ensure Linguistics continues to remain a core part of English and the University in the future.
This is not the end of the campaign, as the Vice Chancellor, though refsued to apologise, has agreed to meet with Linguists to discuss the matter further next year. USSU will continue to oppose all cuts to our education and continue to remind the University that this is our education and that we need to be made part of the decision making process too.
Thanks to the hardwork and support of students, staff and activists, both locally and nationally, Linguistics’ future has been gurannted as a course and management shown they cannot run the university in such a top down, anti-democratic and haphazard manner.
Let this to be a lesson to all those facing cuts up and down the country, that when students, staff and unions organise and fight back, we can overturn managments decisions and win back our education.
Yours,
Lee Vernon
USSU Finance Officer
Why is our university cutting Linguistics?
By Tom Wills
It’s easy to see why the university has been criticised for attempting to axe Linguistics. Many people view the decision as a serious error of judgment on the part of university managers. The discipline is one of the most over-subscribed at Sussex; the Independent newspaper ranked it the number two linguistics course in the country. The world-famous linguist Noam Chomsky commented “If the decision is implemented, it will be a serious blow to the intellectual life of the university.”
But this decision was no mistake. In fact it is part of a deliberate and highly destructive strategy for our institution which, if left unchallenged, will mean more course cuts and decline in the university’s reputation for years to come. It’s not just for the sake of future students that we should be concerned: many of the disciplines under threat, like Linguistics, are undertaking vital research that is needed to solve the challenges of the 21st century – treatments for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, for example. And on a purely individualistic level, the name of Sussex University is going to be a permanent fixture on all our CVs. Its reputation will reflect on us for the rest of our lives.
Management defend their strategy in terms of the ‘sustainability’ of the university. They point out that the future of government funding for universities is increasingly uncertain. Instead, they say, we will have to attract funding from corporations – and that will mean adjusting our priorities accordingly. But universities exist as a public service funded by taxpayers precisely because they carry out work which the corporations will not fund. Increasing the general level of education of the population and furthering the collective knowledge of society are not activities that translate into profit for private enterprise.
At the behest of the government, our university is increasingly being run according to the logic of privatisation – meaning Linguistics is too small and not sufficiently marketable to be retained. The quality of the research and teaching in Linguistics does not figure in the university’s decision. It is a move which we can expect to see repeated with other disciplines which have been marginalised by university management – American Studies and Music to name but two.
Even if we are not studying one of the disciplines directly affected by this threat, the cumulative impact will be the loss of the intellectual diversity which allows for the incubation of new ways of thinking and makes universities what they are. Repeated across the country, this trend represents an existential threat to higher education as a whole. The lecturers’ union UCU has reported that no less than 100 universities are currently facing cutbacks. London Met University is in the most severe situation, where managers are trying to cut 550 jobs. The union warns that if the cuts go ahead “it could be the death-blow for the University.”
UCU is organising a protest for jobs and education in London on May 23. It will march from London Met to City University, which is facing 100 job losses as a result of a cut in government funding for people returning to education to retrain. This will be a significant demonstration, because it will draw together anti-cuts campaigns from different places. By joining forces with other campaigns, we will have the best chance of success because the problems we face are one and the same.
If university managers really cared about the sustainability of our institution in any meaningful sense, they would be up in arms about New Labour’s creeping privatisation of higher education. Instead they opt to toe the line. As a result it falls to us to hold university management – and the government – to account.
This article originally appeared in student magazine The Pulse.