The House of Lords defeated the government on its Higher Education and Research Bill yesterday. I suppose I should declare an interest: as I am now an academic I have some interest in this issue, but candidly I would have done anyway because the Lords are right to think that this Bill really matters. It literally strikes at the very heart of what we value in society.
What their Lordships rightly noted was that the Bill did not define what a University was, or what it was meant to do. This was not by chance, I am sure: the Bill as presented makes universities into money making bodies and its sole aim appears to be to promote that purpose above all others. So their Lordships struck back, inserting a new Clause right at the start of the Bill stating what they thought the purpose and function of a university might be. It was as follows:
I think that well put. I agree with it. It needed to be said. It fundamentally changes what this whole Bill is about. And so it should. And yet 221 Lords voted against it. Thankfully 248 voted for. It is absurd that the values of society have to be upheld by those not elected to do so. But so be it: I am pleased that they did.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
http://www.csun.edu/~dwm3265/Phaedrus_Church_of_Reason_Lecture.pdf
When I completed my MBA in 2014 I spent a lot of time in the library (which at masters level you have to).
What struck was that much of what is known about human behaviour can be found and accessed through a University. I was coming across research which of course confirmed my own research and thinking and all of a sudden I realised that I was not alone. I even read stuff and instantly recognised my experiences were similar to other researchers around the globe.
To me, Universities are about the retention and utilisation of human memory – learning – in order to improve the world for all the human race – not just those with money.
I would have liked to have done a Doctorate but it is just too expensive in the end. I worked very hard for my MBA and was pushed hard too by my very capable supervisors but I feel the lack of going further sometimes.
My MBA though is a gift that keeps on giving and still gives me the mental resources to solve problems at work and at home.
You got it!
In every way
PS You’re higher qualified than me!
Ha Ha – never in a million years my friend – never in a million years!!
It was only an MBA I did afterall Richard – the discipline required at Masters level is what I got the most out of – the subject matter (a deservedly maligned one) maybe a little less. In fact I had to go out of the profesional management field and into the world of psychology to solve my problem and this was recognised in my final assessment and I got recognition for it.
I mean come on – you write so well and clearly have an excellent grasp of very broad range of related subject matters. You are driven by the fact that you care – the best qualification in my view for any human being doing anything – never mind a university award!
You’re underselling yourself
The supreme irony – and one which may not be lost on Mrs “Maybe’s” Government, is that such an introductory clause effectively mimics EU legislation, with its practice of placing a Preamble before the text of the Directive or piece of legislation.
With such a clause as this, any Judge would be offered a very clear steer in any case in which he or she was asked to render judgement, which would have to be in the interest of academic excellence over mere grubbing for profit.
Once again I wearily refer to Larry Elliot’s Guardian piece, way back in 1982, so the reference is now lost to me, in which he complained about Thatcher’s attempt to turn Universities into businesses, noting this was EXACTLY back to front, as it was business that should learn from academia, given that UK Universities were SO much more successful, globally and nationally, than was UK business.
And academia was successful because it had a clear vision of what it should be doing, all supported by clearly applied standards of ethics and excellence, and a framework for delivery based on the disinterested pursuit of truth, excellence and service to learners.
If that seems impossibly ideal and utopian, perhaps it was, but the Universities DID strive after the ideal in earlier generations, and the system was certainly better than the current sordid exercise in what is little more than “mark-grubbing”, allied to the necessary practice of jumping through the hoops set by an increasingly philistine central government that things the only thing worth doing in life us to make money and be commercially successful.
“Where a people has no vision, they perish”. The same is true for academia, which will wither on the vine as a commercial exercise, becoming a third-rate business, where it had previously been a first-rate University.
But watch the miserable House of Commons strike out this clause, reinstating mark-grubbing” mediocrity: “Caliban looking at himself in a mirror”!
Wearily agreed 🙂
Good news indeed – although I cannot understand why anyone vote against this amendment (Conservative whip I guess, although I see Chris Patten was very much on the side of reason).
The university sector needs to be independent of commercial interests to function effectively.
Research and education, like health and security are public goods from which all of society benefits. The constraints on public goods are people not finance. We have known this for years but still there are too many politicians that do not get it.
“It is absurd that the values of society have to be upheld by those not elected to do so.” — I think the right solution would be to replace the House of Lords by a House with representatives from the city councils. This would ensure that there is a 2nd chamber balancing the power (which as we have just seen may be necessary). And it would solve the problem that the current lords are appointed by the government. Moreover, the council are actual stake holders of our system (as opposed to the lords) and have to implememnt or deal with the consequences of government politics. Finally, it could foster democracy and debate since it would unite councils lead by different parties on occasions in which they share a common interest.
Interesting idea
But builds in horrible first past the post bias