Last term, the Vice-Chancellor in the Badger vowed to “promote very vigorous debate within the institution – students and staff – about what are their inspirations and visions for the future” (quoted in the Badger week 1). In the same interview we did with him, he did also admit: “I’m not pretending it’s democracy”, giving his personal perspective on University governance.
The Green Paper has been subject to consultation to the wider University community since a couple of weeks, but we all know that consultation is not the same as debate. There is a significant difference between sending emails to an address with suggestions and critically debating substantive proposals in a constructive way. The VC meetings failed to deliver this, and staff seemed to be very scared of speaking out, fearing for their future careers at Sussex.
The normal democratic procedure at Sussex is that the academic governing body, Senate, debates the proposals, after which the highest governing body of the University, Council, makes final binding decisions. Council met Tuesday 22 January, and was presented with the Green Paper for Sussex’s future. However, the timings between the next Council meeting – 4 April – and Senate –14 March (note the holidays between 20 March and 25 March) – is only ten working days. Papers usually go out about one week before the meeting: i.e. 28 March. This means that there are only five working days for Senate’s thoughts to be included in the White Paper – the final strategy document to be approved by Council on the 4 April. The Senate meeting is, itself, only of standard length. The supposed argument would be that written submissions are being accepted from all Senate members. But surely the academic community needs much more time for debate if such significant changes are made to curricula, teaching and learning conditions, research priorities, staff conditions, financial priorities and governance?
So Senate was initially asked to comment on the Green Paper, a set of vague proposals, termed by the VC as merely ‘a discussion document’ on March 14. And the White Paper, containing a more substantive and binding set of reforms, was not going to be seen by Senate, counter to the normal procedure.
But the management have changed their story. Joanne Wright assured me on Tuesday (12-02) that Senate will get to see an ‘almost finalised’ version of the White Paper. But how can a White Paper be drawn up without any input from Senate, based merely on two open meetings and written submissions by academics on the Green Paper that have no binding can simply be ignored by management? Moreover, what does “almost finalised” mean? This gives VCEG a carte blanche, which, regarding the way they have handled the situation so far, seems like a terrible idea.
This whole process has been a complete joke. The VCEG have changed their story regarding the research themes twice and content of Senate Papers once. The VC open meetings were only marginally critical and proved unsatisfactory forums for debate. Many fear to speak out. The question is – what to do now? Here are two suggestions:
- Demand for a prolonged Senate meeting (3-4 hours), solely on the Green Paper, so that a wide variety of issues can be discussed and proposals amended. Council (on April 4) should only have the power to take further the feedback that comes out of the Senate meeting. Council should approve no papers before Senate has seen them.
- Demand that Senate should not be asked to comment on restructuring or anything like that until the wider academic community has democratically decided a general direction for Sussex’s future. Any such rigorous reforms must be academically led and democratically sound. Let Senate decide what the “right academic structures” are, after coming up with their vision on emerging “ambitious plans”.
These, as well as the controversy and uncertainty surrounding the research themes are definitely things we can mobilise around. How do people feel about this?
