Sussex Not For Sale

Resisting the marketisation of Education at the University of Sussex

University education in the UK is undergoing a radical transformation. Funding for students is now massively restricted by the government; universities are forced to either look for external (non-governmental) sources of income or cut costs, resulting in the outsourcing of teaching and support provisions. The quality of services is getting worse, not better: the results are more managers, more paperwork, more frustrated faculty and precarious support staff and less public debate and community participation. In short, the ongoing marketisation of Higher Education is transforming [turning]  education into a commodity geared purely towards the satisfaction of business and job requirements, whilst destroying [eroding?] the vibrant culture of debate and dissent inherent in institutions of learning.

We believe that higher education should not just be [is not just] about getting a job, but about the life-changing, emancipating experience that it (still) is for many. We must oppose the idea that students are merely consumers of an education product [Students are not merely consumers of an education product]. Furthermore, we must oppose [Thanks to the introduction of ] top-up fees that [the government] have ensured that higher education remains an elitist affair. [We must oppose this:] students, especially those [coming] from a working class background[s] or coming from abroad, [can]now have [dedicate] less time to study[ing] because they have to work part- or full-time whilst studying.

It is unacceptable for the government to burden students with present levels of debt. Likewise, it is unacceptable for the government to attack and undermine the conditions of work of all employed by the education sector. The government should commit to wealth re-distribution in the form of a public education system funded through progressive taxation. [It is unacceptable to burden students with present levels of debt. Likewise, it is unacceptable for the government to attack and undermine the conditions of work of those employed in the education sector.]

We believe education to be a universal right. The UK (still) features a solid social welfare system, [with public services] fought for by many of our grandparents. The higher education sector is one of the[se] public services fought for, yet now it is, like the NHS, slowly being privatised and integrated into the market, thus exposing it to the ravages of capital. This can and must be opposed.
Sussex Not For Sale aims to counter creeping privatisation by bringing [uniting] staff and students together to resist the changes forced on us from above.

What has Sussex Not for Sale been doing?

Since the Sussex Not For Sale! campaign was launched at the start of 2008, the campaign [it] has focused on two main areas of activity. On the one hand we knew that even though senior management always talk about large-scale ongoing consultation, in fact, nothing but rumours would be circulating on campus. As such, we focused on gathering as much factual information as possible and on raising the community's awareness around the impending restructuring. The latter was attained through the extensive distribution of leaflets, posters and articles. The results are links between staff and students through highlighting the negative effects that the aforementioned restructuring would have on both staff and students.

On the other hand we also realised that these changes were going to take place unhindered unless we showed our opposition to senior management. Sussex Not For Sale! has consistently challenged senior management's right to single-handedly decide over the future of our university. As a campaign, we have been challenging the language used by senior management in their publications and in the limited consultations that did take place. Furthermore we have published our demands as a yard-stick for senior managements' plans and continue to issues new demands as the campaign proceeds.

Whatever Sussex Not For Sale! will still achieve[s] in the future, it is certain that through its activity, staff and students at Sussex University are not going to [will not] uncritically accept reform imposed from above. This in itself is a first victory.

What is the situation  at the University of Sussex?

Senior management at Sussex University are trying to implement reforms that will change the face of Sussex University for ever. These reforms include the creation of research and teaching themes that endanger academic autonomy; the restructuring of the entire departmental system resulting in 'super-departments', endangering the democratic decision[-]making procedures at Sussex; and the expansion of areas of research and teaching that are [currently] marginal to Sussex's overall performance. Even Though senior management claim the opposite, it is clear to most people on campus that they are implementing these drastic changes in a thoroughly undemocratic manner: for one, senior management, in implementing these changes, have overturned the established decision[-]making procedure by reversing the roles of Senate (usually the highest decision making body on campus consisting largely of academics and students) and Council (consisting largely of outside appointees)[, thus prioritising the voice of external appointees over that of our own staff and students.] Furthermore, senior management have withheld important documents (the so-called white paper) from the university community, and have presented that same community with documents that are incredibly vague (the green paper). The official reason given for this is that the vague documents are mere consultation documents; this however stands in contradiction to senior management's confirmation that these documents will not change significantly. Not surprisingly, many members of staff have already voiced their concerns about the feasability [feasibility] and the possible consequences of these proposed reforms.

It should be known that Sussex University has suffered from ill-thought[-]out managerial decisions in the recent past (the backdrop against which the SortUSOut campaign and the campaign to fight the closure of chemistry emerged). When senior management therefore presents new plans that sound as flimsy as that [those] of previous senior managements, it is no surprise that they are met with opposition.