(no subject)
I've been trying to put my thoughts together about what Thursday means for education, the ability to protest, the future for those of my daughter's generation.
A Professor at BCU has done it so much better than I could. I'm leaving this post public.
10 reasons why I am a ‘thug’: by Professor Joyce Canaan
(Written in response to Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Superintendent, who, on the Today show on Radio 4 (10 December 2010), stated that those people throwing paint and breaking a window of the royal car, carrying Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall on the evening of 9 December, during a demonstration against tuition fee rises, were not ‘demonstrators’ but ‘thugs’ as were, by implication, all demonstrators (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wdk0s/Today_10_12_2010/ )).
1. I decided to go on the demonstration on 9 December 2010 to join the estimated 30,000 people protesting against the now passed (323 to 302) but still contestable university fees rise. If this is realised, most of the first generation minority ethnic and white working class students now in universities like the one I teach in (designated as facing a ‘high to medium level of impact’ to proposed cuts in a recent UCU report (http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5149) could in future find that the universities they planned to attend have either been completely closed or had current offerings drastically reduced. The fees rise will double or treble current tuition fees of £3225, effectively privatising university education, forcing students to pay fully for most courses from 2012. Business and corporate interests will now increasingly determine university courses: Bradford University recently announced their partnership with Morrisons to offer degree in business management (http://www.ictscoop.com/news/general-news/833--morrisons-and-bradford-university-school-of-management-create-degree.html) and Manchester Metropolitan University already offers a McDonalds management programme (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1388106_supersize_this_mcdonalds_rolls_out_the_mcdegree_after_mmu_trial) that McDonalds plans to expand across the country (Tesco already has a bespoke programme with MMU.). The idea of a liberal education producing informed, responsible citizens, present (albeit never fully realised) since at least von Humboldt, is now vanishing. Higher Education is being reduced solely to the narrow end of serving economic interests. Call me a thug, then, for wanting to fight for a much wider brief for higher education.
2. I wanted to stand with students, other lecturers and members of other unions to express my anger about how parliamentary democracy really works-with electoral candidates promising not to raise fees, thereby gaining votes, whilst knowing that they would do so if elected-as, indeed, they did. Is this expression of my democratic rights thuggish?
3. I also sought to express my outrage at the potential closure of innumerable arts, humanities and social sciences departments (the latter being the area in which I teach and research) given the government’s intent on cutting teaching grants to universities in these areas by 100%. Funding would still be provided to teaching STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and maths, plus programmes in a few languages) based on the erroneous assumption that national economic growth, now the seemingly only relevant rationale for a university education, requires fuller funding of these areas alone (http://education-portal.com/articles/STEM_Education_Not_Necessarily_Linked_to_Economic_Growth.html). In fact, critical thinking skills developed in arts, humanities and social science subjects are needed now more than ever in a world where climate change is reaching breaking point and the wealthiest are hijacking national economies and governments and dodging tax payment, disregarding the growing proportion of national populations suffering as jobs and social services are cut and privatised to ensure their growing profiteering. Is it thuggish to cut back on courses teaching critical and analytical skills or to protect and further develop these courses?
4. Having gone to this demonstration, my assumption was that we could follow the route the NUS had agreed with police. My colleagues and I found, however, that the police blocked our entry to Parliament Square. Knowing that we had the right to get to the Square, we walked into St James Park. We then heard police megaphones announcing that they could stop and search anyone not on the agreed demonstration route. Why was it okay for them to stop and search us but not for us to get to the Square . . . which they shortly thereafter let us do? Who’s the thug here?
5. In Parliament Square we found police in rows with visors down on their helmets, riot shields up, blocking Parliament and the agreed route to the platform where speeches were given. Why such a high level of aggression? Why prevent us from reaching the platform? I submit that this was police thuggish provocation, adding to the provocation they caused by temporarily preventing our passage to the Square. I viewed (and view) these acts as purposeful, aiming to discredit demonstrators by bringing us to the boiling point and, for some, beyond.
6. I stayed in Parliament Square nearly up to the time of the vote that, as expected, the government won (323 to 302) because the NUS/police agreement was for a candlelit vigil to be held at 4:30 pm. My colleagues and I thought it best to leave Parliament Square shortly before the 5:30 vote as the police were coming closer into the Square and seemed to be blocking all exits. Would a thug seek to leave a potentially volatile situation, given continuing police provocation?
7. A British Transport Police officer informed me, when I asked, that we could leave the Square via a nearby narrow passageway. As we walked down this passageway, with tens of others, we suddenly heard people shouting that mounted police were charging. They came down this passageway, forcing us up onto a wall and then barricading us in. Walking out, I saw a young woman huddled in a ball, on the ground, unable to move, and a young man holding his head. Clearly the horses had been used as weapon and barricade. I heard later that a young man standing elsewhere had been hit so hard with a truncheon on his head that he suffered a stroke and had to have brain surgery (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/12/riots-fire-anger-defining-political-moment?intcmp=239 ). Can someone please tell me who the thugs are here?
8. My colleagues and I were then kettled in Parliament Square for hours. I confess to standing around a fire lit by demonstrators to keep warm. I further confess to adding a thick cardboard placard to the fire. Thuggish behaviour perhaps?
9. Given the absence of toilet facilities, I confess to urinating in a corner of what I later learnt was the Treasury Department. A thuggish act?
10. My colleagues and I heard that it was possible to leave by a nearby police blockade. We queued for hours and were only allowed to leave after the police forced each of us to have our pictures taken-an illegal request given that none of us were in custody (http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/category/student-demo/ ). I confess to sticking out my tongue when my photo was taken, a small gesture of defiance. I was lucky enough to be let out by 9pm. Colleagues were kept there, and on Westminster Bridge, until at least 11pm. Why were photos taken of each of us and what will happen to these photos? Why were people kept from going home for so long in such cold weather? I ask one final time, who were the thugs in this situation? And, equally importantly, what did these thugs really hope to accomplish by acting in this way?
A Professor at BCU has done it so much better than I could. I'm leaving this post public.
10 reasons why I am a ‘thug’: by Professor Joyce Canaan
(Written in response to Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Superintendent, who, on the Today show on Radio 4 (10 December 2010), stated that those people throwing paint and breaking a window of the royal car, carrying Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall on the evening of 9 December, during a demonstration against tuition fee rises, were not ‘demonstrators’ but ‘thugs’ as were, by implication, all demonstrators (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wdk0s/Today_10_12_2010/ )).
1. I decided to go on the demonstration on 9 December 2010 to join the estimated 30,000 people protesting against the now passed (323 to 302) but still contestable university fees rise. If this is realised, most of the first generation minority ethnic and white working class students now in universities like the one I teach in (designated as facing a ‘high to medium level of impact’ to proposed cuts in a recent UCU report (http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=5149) could in future find that the universities they planned to attend have either been completely closed or had current offerings drastically reduced. The fees rise will double or treble current tuition fees of £3225, effectively privatising university education, forcing students to pay fully for most courses from 2012. Business and corporate interests will now increasingly determine university courses: Bradford University recently announced their partnership with Morrisons to offer degree in business management (http://www.ictscoop.com/news/general-news/833--morrisons-and-bradford-university-school-of-management-create-degree.html) and Manchester Metropolitan University already offers a McDonalds management programme (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1388106_supersize_this_mcdonalds_rolls_out_the_mcdegree_after_mmu_trial) that McDonalds plans to expand across the country (Tesco already has a bespoke programme with MMU.). The idea of a liberal education producing informed, responsible citizens, present (albeit never fully realised) since at least von Humboldt, is now vanishing. Higher Education is being reduced solely to the narrow end of serving economic interests. Call me a thug, then, for wanting to fight for a much wider brief for higher education.
2. I wanted to stand with students, other lecturers and members of other unions to express my anger about how parliamentary democracy really works-with electoral candidates promising not to raise fees, thereby gaining votes, whilst knowing that they would do so if elected-as, indeed, they did. Is this expression of my democratic rights thuggish?
3. I also sought to express my outrage at the potential closure of innumerable arts, humanities and social sciences departments (the latter being the area in which I teach and research) given the government’s intent on cutting teaching grants to universities in these areas by 100%. Funding would still be provided to teaching STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and maths, plus programmes in a few languages) based on the erroneous assumption that national economic growth, now the seemingly only relevant rationale for a university education, requires fuller funding of these areas alone (http://education-portal.com/articles/STEM_Education_Not_Necessarily_Linked_to_Economic_Growth.html). In fact, critical thinking skills developed in arts, humanities and social science subjects are needed now more than ever in a world where climate change is reaching breaking point and the wealthiest are hijacking national economies and governments and dodging tax payment, disregarding the growing proportion of national populations suffering as jobs and social services are cut and privatised to ensure their growing profiteering. Is it thuggish to cut back on courses teaching critical and analytical skills or to protect and further develop these courses?
4. Having gone to this demonstration, my assumption was that we could follow the route the NUS had agreed with police. My colleagues and I found, however, that the police blocked our entry to Parliament Square. Knowing that we had the right to get to the Square, we walked into St James Park. We then heard police megaphones announcing that they could stop and search anyone not on the agreed demonstration route. Why was it okay for them to stop and search us but not for us to get to the Square . . . which they shortly thereafter let us do? Who’s the thug here?
5. In Parliament Square we found police in rows with visors down on their helmets, riot shields up, blocking Parliament and the agreed route to the platform where speeches were given. Why such a high level of aggression? Why prevent us from reaching the platform? I submit that this was police thuggish provocation, adding to the provocation they caused by temporarily preventing our passage to the Square. I viewed (and view) these acts as purposeful, aiming to discredit demonstrators by bringing us to the boiling point and, for some, beyond.
6. I stayed in Parliament Square nearly up to the time of the vote that, as expected, the government won (323 to 302) because the NUS/police agreement was for a candlelit vigil to be held at 4:30 pm. My colleagues and I thought it best to leave Parliament Square shortly before the 5:30 vote as the police were coming closer into the Square and seemed to be blocking all exits. Would a thug seek to leave a potentially volatile situation, given continuing police provocation?
7. A British Transport Police officer informed me, when I asked, that we could leave the Square via a nearby narrow passageway. As we walked down this passageway, with tens of others, we suddenly heard people shouting that mounted police were charging. They came down this passageway, forcing us up onto a wall and then barricading us in. Walking out, I saw a young woman huddled in a ball, on the ground, unable to move, and a young man holding his head. Clearly the horses had been used as weapon and barricade. I heard later that a young man standing elsewhere had been hit so hard with a truncheon on his head that he suffered a stroke and had to have brain surgery (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/12/riots-fire-anger-defining-political-moment?intcmp=239 ). Can someone please tell me who the thugs are here?
8. My colleagues and I were then kettled in Parliament Square for hours. I confess to standing around a fire lit by demonstrators to keep warm. I further confess to adding a thick cardboard placard to the fire. Thuggish behaviour perhaps?
9. Given the absence of toilet facilities, I confess to urinating in a corner of what I later learnt was the Treasury Department. A thuggish act?
10. My colleagues and I heard that it was possible to leave by a nearby police blockade. We queued for hours and were only allowed to leave after the police forced each of us to have our pictures taken-an illegal request given that none of us were in custody (http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/category/student-demo/ ). I confess to sticking out my tongue when my photo was taken, a small gesture of defiance. I was lucky enough to be let out by 9pm. Colleagues were kept there, and on Westminster Bridge, until at least 11pm. Why were photos taken of each of us and what will happen to these photos? Why were people kept from going home for so long in such cold weather? I ask one final time, who were the thugs in this situation? And, equally importantly, what did these thugs really hope to accomplish by acting in this way?