Sussex Not For Sale

Below are all the comments respondents have given in the staff survey so far. The page is updated as we receive more responses. If you would like to discuss any of these further, you can always use our forum! ------------------------- Academic related member of staff: [opinion of the Green Paper] Generally good. We need to catch up with our *former* peers, the likes of York, exeter, even Warwick (at a push). Sussex has been going along dong the same thing it did 10 years a go while other universities have changed the way they work. I don't think it is about 'making money' it is about doing things which will help bring in money to do the things we want to do. Some of our facilities are poor, and we lack support. Bringing in good research funding and high paying courses we help bring in money across campus. heads of department need to work harder on recruitment. It is one of the most important parts of their job. take on someone who doesn;t want to do their fair share of work (teaching or research) can bring down a whole department and stress those who work hard. HODs need to help departments advance their academic interests while also working as part of the overall university - which means working with management. ----- Associate Tutor: Since the abolition of the original schools system the University has nose dived both in terms of being a place to work and study and also in terms of the quality delivered to students. A restructuring is urgently needed in order to place a renewed emphasis on interdisciplinary research and reduce the role of the faceless midlle class trouser suits that I seem to find myself forever locking horns with in order to get even the simplest things done. My most recent experience of this has been trying to get a) paid at all bugger any complaints about pay rates, i've seen nothing in eight weeks b0 trying to understand how HR arbitrarily awarded me an 'ethnicity' despite my writing the words "fuck off, I'm a British citizen not a skin pigment" in the box marked other on my last ethnic monitoring form. What is in fact being proposed at Sussex is a continuation of earlier ill conceived reforms rather than those which are badly needed. Corruption, petty vindictiveness and incompetence are rife and visible to students despite the view of most faculty and admin staff that they are somehow invisible. The reorganisation of the library last year provides some fine examples of this in my view. When I complained I was told I was not part of a "silent and satisified majority and needed to get into the real world". Ironically I have been in the real world between postgrad and undergrad and the individual who said this has been in post for thirty years after being appointed without qualification by a personal friend. My principle reservation about getting involved in any campaign is that I have no desire to be associated with drum banging banner waving yaas (or luvvie spawn hippy scum at Sussex). Sadly, as one of the students from a non-traitional (working class family) background, who has been both an undergraduate and postgarduate at Sussex, I am convinced that this debate is just about choosing which bunch of tossers from Lewes are going to set the agenda that patronises me until I submit my thesis and get the fuck out of here. I was self funding in the first year of my Dphil and think that for the amount paid I (and now my funders) should recieve an education in an atmosphere of stability rather than some manufactured climate of crisis engineered by self promoting halfwits. Neither I nor any other student should find themselve having to go to endless pointless meetings in order to discover what is happening when I could be doing work. There is far less of an ideological battle taking place than the protagonists seem to think. Behind the rhetoric both sides are either posh or aspirational posh twats incapable of running the University or anything else. I was saddened when, in the course of my research I encountered some documents at the PRO on the reform of UWI in Trinidad in the early seventies which held up Sussex as the model University of the future. Sadly that is now in the past. The core issue is that nobody has put forward a comprehensive ethical case for the University's existence and organisation/reorganisation. Until the centre left and centre right liberals stop squabbling and actually put something thoughtful on offer I remain as apathetic and depressed by this charade as by political action in general. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: Sussex has a proud reputation of critical research and teaching, making it a lively and interesting place to work and study. Quite apart from the question of why we need to be restructured, yet again, I can't fathom why the University management don't understand that our reputation precedes us and is there to be built on: why are we being driven down a policy-relevant path when that will just turn us into another bog-standard university? Universities are places of learning, to be led by intellectual curiosity, not by profit or policy fads. Yes, the government's 'reforms' have placed increasing pressures on universities, but there should be genuine consultation about how to respond, not some top-down process that is getting people's backs up. --- Associate Tutor: I am worried about the Students Union's campaign against 'security' as a University research theme without considering the actual security research, most of it informed by critical security and human security ideas, and virtually all of it critical of official security policies, which is actually carried out in this University. As I understand, some restructuring towards decentralization, i.e. more freedom of decision, is welcomed by academic departments. However, I am not sure in how far the restructuring programme suggested in the Green Paper overall meets this. --- Associate Tutor: The traditions of this university and the freedom to think and be that it has promoted are in crisis thanks to the increasing commodification of learning and the business preoccupations of the "management". Instead of maintaining the university's reputation for rigorous critical thinking and interdisciplinary research the management are trying to wrestle away what influence students and staff have over the future of this university. This is not and should not be seen as a business or profit making institution, we do not want to be the LSE where only the previleged go to get training in how to best make successful capitalists when they emerge. Furthermore it is deeply disturbing that the university is pandering to government/ and funding body political agendas relating to security studies. Sussex should remain outside this distasteful attempt at co-opting staff and students into a McCarthiest vision of the world. The language of this green paper is far better placed in the marketing strategy of a multinational selling cleaning products - This green paper needs to be binned as soon as possible. If the management want to restructure the university they cannot pretend to have consulted and received the blessing of staff and students. At the very least be honest and tell us that you are commercializing our institution, our life's work and our ideas whether we like it or not. Clearly the management would benefit from attending some courses on commoditisation and and global capitalism - maybe then they will be a bit more in tune with the rest of us. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: I have to add my voice to all of those saying that teaching and research on "international security" should not be opposed. I work at Sussex in a field that could be described as "international security" and I resent the idea, as expressed elsewhere on this website, that teaching and researching in this area would be "Guantanamo style" or related in anyway to the "war on terror". Has anyone actually looked at the "international security" work already going on at Sussex? As other people have pointed out, this is mainly in the area of critical security studies. For my part, I've been working on disarmament and arms control here for over 10 years and get annoyed when people automatically link "security" work to a neocon agenda. Security studies is actually a very broad discipline and includes human security, environmental security and so on. The title "international security" was chosen by the Uni management and, as far as I know, the staff group looking at this area has already flagged up its concerns with the concept, if narrowly interpreted. The group has been clear that any new developments at Sussex would build on what's already here, which is expertise in justice, international law, migration, human rights, disarmament etc. It would not lead to a "war studies" department, which I think would be anathema to most people working in "international security" at Sussex. I would therefore hope that people in Sussex Not 4 Sale talk to the staff actually teaching and researching in "international security" at Sussex in SOCCUL, SI and SPRU before making offensive remarks about "Guantanamo style" teaching or research. Anyone who knows about the field, would know that a research theme on "international security" does not have to be reactionary and should therefore not be opposed out of hand. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: A "security' theme per se is not bad. What is importatn is how it is defined and what sort of reserach it is intended to fund and generate. A security-related reserach strategy which is intended to be primarily policy-oriented would be an enormous set-back and will grealty reduce sussex's competetiveness in attracting both students and funding given the criticality and originality in both teaching and resrach for which Sussex is deservedly renowned world-wide. --- Clerical staff: I have no problem with the idea of Research Themes in general, it is good to promote something that results in collaboration between different disciplines but surely "security" is such an emotionally loaded word these days and choosing this as a theme feels like pandering to an agenda dictated by current heads of state. What about a research theme of "Freedom" (borders, migration, web, human rights)rather than security. I fail to see the need for restructuring the university. Surely most of the current problems could be resolved by "tweaking" the current structures to achieve more autonomy for departments. The phrase "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" springs to mind. Restructuring will only take place at enormous expense to the university. The VC meetings are not a good place for people to speak their minds. Smaller groups chaired by the pro-VCs perhaps and including representatives from ALL levels would create a better environment for people to express their opinions on the current and proposed structures. --- Associate Tutor: I do not think that 'Security' shall be disregarded as a research theme altogehter - it is and, I hope, will remain one of the central research topics at our university. Approach to Security studies undertaken in Sussex has proved to be groundbreaking and novel and brings to the fore such issues as human security, genocide, etc. Such understanding of security matters shall not be lost but strengthen and supported instead. However, making 'Security' the research theme for the whole university is unnecessary, counter-productive and may seriously demage the image of institution which have been worked towards from the day of its establishment. Security studies have always had their place within the IR department and shall remain such but setting 'Security' as a major research theme can turn our unievrsity into the centre of Strategic studies with a militaristic flavour and thus neoliberalise one of the few left-wing institutions in the world. Preservation of the academic heritage of the University of Sussex as it is known in the UK, Europe and asround the world is essential and - speaking the language of new management - economically beneficial since that is exactly what makes potential students gravitate towards our uni. New research agenda and keeping up with new developments in both academic and real worlds are crucial however, those can and shall be done without damaging but rather with reaccentuation of what is already achieved. --- Academic related member of staff: Performance measures related to research grant income may well undermine academic freedom. Subjects that do not recruit well and score poorly in the RAE are also threatened. "Security" is an ambiguous term and aspects of it certainly merit academic study - cf the "Centre for International Cooperation and Security" at Bradford and study at Leeds, Warwick etc. Why shouldn't Sussex research in this area, building on work in Politics, IDS and SPRU ? Restructuring is about exerting more control by VCEG over department without Schools getting in the way. The devolution of budgets is to be done in the context of removal of cross subsidy. Schools allow for cross-subsidy at the moment, and allow for collegiate debate. In the new model, it is unclear where that debate will take place other than between department heads and VCEG. It is unlikely that Senate will be able to make a difference. We need to foster collegiate decision taking, not abandon it to line managed business units. Would the closure of Chemistry have been been easier within in the proposed structures? I think so ... --- Academic related member of staff: All concerns aside, I think that it's a shame that the Students Union has launched a campaign against 'security' as a University research theme without considering the actual security research, most of it informed by critical security and human security ideas, and virtually all of it critical of official security policies, which is actually carried out in SOCCUL. --- administrative staff: The proposed restructuring of the University would add an extra layer of management which is unnecessary. Staff have not been given the opportunity to comment properly on the proposed changes and the timetable for their implementation appears rushed. No detailed risk analysis has been undertaken and many staff feel left out of the process and consequently powerless to influence the 'powers that be'. Morale will suffer and many feel that the proposed changes will not deliver any benefits, either to themselves or to the wider University. The case for change has not been made clearly or convincingly. --- Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow: My main concerns are that the targets outlined in this paper are woefully unrealistic. I also am concerned for the future of science when all of science falls into one faculty. The decision to create an over-arching graduate school undermines the notion of increased departmental autonomy and has not been properly discussed or thought through. I recognise that there has to be a better balance between traditional academic freedom, where faculty are free to research whatever they like, and performance measured in terms of research income and output. The present status at Sussex leaves too many unproductive faculty with no system to boost their performance. --- I don't think the broad research themes are a good idea. For those researchers working in areas which fall outside the themes chosen, they will lose support for applying for funding. Not all research can be slotted into a few themes. Diversity and freedom of ideas are important in a big university like Sussex. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: No more restructuring! Endless change wastes time and money, demoralizes faculty and degrades the student experience. --- Associate Tutor: The green paper is a archetypal example of everything that is wrong with ideologically driven management and management for the sake of management. Yes the university needs to change, but only if that change is thoroughly considered and designed in true consultation with staff. This is neither. Management should consider that the a good captain does not change tack in order to illustrate authority and dynamism. Rather a good captain has an eye on the horizon and sails a steady course to get there. On the issue of the 'security' theme. This is intellectually void and ideologically driven. Considering the breadth of expertise within the university, inclusive of security, management might consider if they are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Will Sussex be able to compete on this theme alone? Will Sussex be abandoning a reputation for interdisciplinarity and broadly conceived critical inquiry for the sake of the latest craze? What would be the 'niche' filled by this turn to security that is not already filled elsewhere? I hear Axes grinding in Sussex House, and this university and its students, current and prospective, are too important for a disenfranchised axe grinding peanut thrower to be calling the tune. Think again, fast and clearly...that is what you have been employed to do. --- The opposition to 'security' as a research theme is based on complete ignorance of what is actually researched and taught in security studies today, much of which is 'critical security studies' and includes work on 'human security'. The Students Union should not have launched this campaign against 'security' themes and teaching without making itself acquainted with what is actually going on in this area of research. This is an unjustified attack on an established and reputable area of research in the University, and the Union should be ashamed of itself. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: I would like to remain anonymous: had I known about these changes they would have weighed on my decision to accept a job at Sussex (last year) and move my family here. ---- Associate Tutor: The University needs to get management staff at senior levels. These people should be managers who can then deal with the academics thru the Heads of Dept. The current senior management at the University is woefully incompetant. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: Some aspects of the restructuring seem positive, particularly if it will lead to stronger departments with more admin support. However, care should be taken not to impose a model without properly thinking it through, and judging by the lack of success of the previous restructuring there are clearly underlying problems which will still need to be addressed. --- Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow: I haven't read it [the Green Paper] - didn't even know there WAS a green paper until looking at this. The restructuring process has, so far, seemed totally top down - what information we get arrives in the form of rumour or 'it's too late to do much about this' missives from our head of department. It's not clear who to lobby or how, or even if it's worth it, since the predominant opionion is that whilst paying lipservice to 'consultation' the men and women at the top will do as they please "Our department works fine as it is. Why can't they leave us alone?" --- Associate Tutor: Green Paper and comment on anything that is not covered here:: The misleading title is an apt precedent for the delusive content. Someone needs to expunge some adjectives before the whole campus is afflicted with narcolepsy. --- Clerical staff: I am appalled by the fact that the administrative chain, which is a vital and unbiased link between all areas, is completely disregarded in this process. Departmental co-ordinators work with both academics and students on a daily basis and are also affiliated with some areas of 'the Centre' (Sussex House) but our knowledge, experience and vision is not used for the valuable feedback it could provide. As things stand, there is no open channel for feedback from our chain to 'the centre'. It seems to me that the whole restructuring thing is just due to having new people in positions of power - who feel they have to make radical changes in order to justify their existence and probably also to beef up their already overburdened CVs. Having witnessed the last restructuring, I am afraid I am deeply cynical about this one. --- Lecturer/Research Fellow: "Heritage" should not be one of our research themes, either. It is as problematic a concept as "security." Continuous restructuring is time-consuming and money-consuming. The Schools were already restructured once in the past 10 years, and should be allowed to get on with teaching and research. --- Clerical staff: I took part in the consultation, but it should be noted that the questions were by no means neutral, in fact skewed to get the answers the hierarchy wanted. By the way, your division of university staff into Associate Tutor Manual/ancillary staff Clerical staff Lecturer/Research Fellow Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow does not reflect reality and is demeaning to support staff --- Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow [the Green Paper] This is a sorry development that is being pushed by a management which for the first time in the University's history has been recruited entirely from outside the University. That means that a thorough fact-finding operation should have been undertaken first, and certainly that the policy should have been to build on existing strengths. Instead themes are being pushed on the basis of what appears very much as the personal (and also political) interest of at least one pro-VC. Of course it is very unfortunate to have another round of major restructuring without having had an evaluation of what was NOT achieved by the last round 5 years ago. Was it wrong, incomplete, badly executed? We don't hear. It is year zero again the concerns of a new management are more important apparently than securing a stable working environment in which teaching and research can flourish. ------------------- Academic related member of staff: Actually I would go slightly further than question one. Ideally universities are here not to teach in the narrow sense, but to facilitate learning. Sadly the government has put paid to the idea of education being about learning and I don't know how we would ever get back from that. I actually find it hard with the basic idealogy of the green paper. Of course we should strive to be excellent in every respect. Do I think the green paper delivers that? No, no I don't. My answers to the last question may seem a little contradictory so let me briefly explain. [ - The main role of the heads of the new Schools should be to work closely with senior management. - The main role of the heads of the new Schools should be to advance the academic interests of their School.] Sussex did not change and expand at the point that most of our competitors did in the 80's. We have stagnated and have been trying desperately to cling on to the position we enjoyed in the 70's. We do need to change and we almost certainly need to grow. However, I am not at all convinced that the current plans deliver that. There has been no risk analysis whatsoever of the proposals. We are of course a business of sorts, we do need to generate income. No other business in their right minds would undertake such change again without being much more sure of the benefits and costs of the outcome. On the matter of the new Heads, well I think they need to do both. These should be pivitol roles within the instituion. Of course they should be focusing on advancing the academic interests of their School but you can't do that in isolation. They need to work with senior management, other schools, the outside world in general, in order to nuture their School. ----- Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow: I need to be much more convinced of the rationale for the restructuring and the plans/goals of the senior management team before I can put any meaningful effort into the process. Let us stop confusing quality and structure. With restructuring you address issues of structure, but not issues of quality of research and teaching. What needs to be addressed is NSS results, postgraduate recruitment, recruitment and training of TAs, etc. These issues will not be solved by throwing them into a new school or mega-department. --- Academic related member of staff: The overall thrust of the Green Paper is positive, and begins to establish an appropriate forward plan to regenerate Sussex. There are areas of concern about whether some of the financial targets are acheivable (reliance on oversaeas student fee income may be high risk), and staffing issues are all but ignored. On the Security theme, it is essential that there is open debate so that the theme is well understood. --- Clerical staff: I am technical staff, not clerical, but that is not an option in this survey.