It is now day 13 (oooh unlucky) of the Camp Against Cuts, and our support is still increasing with every day. We have managed to secure a daily donation of food from Kush in east slope bar, perhaps the safest person on campus, if not the world. The student union council yesterday voted to defend the campers from any attempted punishment by managenment and there is a petition going round to the same effect that has over 200 signitures so far. We have already recieved some press coverage, including a radio interview that should be broadcast today.
Last friday in a live video conference to students at Sussex uni, Noam Chomsky, an intellectual figure highly regarded by linguistics and activists alike (so a good person to be in touch with for a campaign that is in part about saving a linguistics department) spoke elequently of the need to resist the marketisation and commodification of education (the video recording of this conference should be available soon). Then in correspondence with students at the camp he wished the camp success and said he was considering writing a statement condemning management's decision to instigate disciplinary proceedings against students involved in the camp.
This support could not come at a more crucial time for the camp. Today the Vice-Chancellor himself sent an email to ALL members of staff telling them not to support the camp, in response to a sympathic staff memember encouraging his colleagues to come and vist it. The email repeated what was written in their last communication to us that they are "considering what action to take against us" (the full text of the email is at the end of this post). And it is not just the campers who are experiancing repression.
Monday saw the "Cuts Against Cuts" music festival, organised by the Save Linguistics campaign, cancelled by a management body unprecedentedly exceeding its authority by infering with a gig in East Slope Bar, run by the students union! All the efforts that went into organising the festival, which was to be an awareness raising event about the situation at the university was cruelly laid to waste supposedly because it would interfere with revision. However, the real motives behind this are clearly political: management has never infered before in an event such as this, and the fact that the festival was explicitly about opposition to management policy obviously had much more to do with it.
Camp Against Cuts has invited the Save Linguistics campaign, as well as all other concerned members of the university community to a meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at the camp itself (see previous post) at one o'clock. Hopefully here we can discuss what our shared response to the tactics used by management should be, and reevaluate what we want to see come out of the camp, while building a firmer and larger core block of support.
For anyone to whom the prospect of a serious political discussion isnt that appealling, never fear, for the next day (thursday) at one we are inviting the entire campus to a picnic at the camp, so that all can see just what the real atmosphere at the camp is. Far from the management's fearmongering claims of "riotous and disorderly conduct", it really is just a campsite in the trees with plenty of sunlight, food and all sorts of arts+crafts stuff. Come along and see for yourself.
This is the email the Vice-Chancellor sent today, lies and distortions are highlighted and explained:
To: all staff
From: Michael Farthing, Vice-Chancellor
Staff members of two of the campus trades unions (Unison and UCU) received
an email at the end of last week from a member of staff asking them to
support a small protest camp of students whose tents are pitched outside
the Meeting House. [the camp is actually much closer to the management's own offices than the meeting house. this is important as it's location there means it cannot cause disruption to student's, as no buildings used by students are nearby. This ignores the fact that we deliberatly set it up outside their offices]
I am therefore emailing all staff so that you understand that we are
seeking to remove this camp from the University, and why we cannot stand by
and simply let any form of student protest drag on unchecked. [unchecked? they've been checking up on us everyday, and even reading our facebook messages! if they had found anything in these efforts that would have given them legitimate reason for breaking up the camp, then they would have done so by now]
These students set up their tents overnight on Thursday 21 May, 12 days ago
as I write. They have not sought any discussion or dialogue with anyone
about any particular issue. [we have sent statements to management explaining clearly why we are doing this and set up our camp outside their offices so that they could not ignore us and would have to talk to us. They are the ones who have declined the oppertunity for dialouge. We've been waiting for them to respond to us for almsot two weeks]
On Facebook they initially said they were protesting about decisions made
on linguistics and alleged management action that has "hindered the
progress of the Palestine Solidarity Movement on campus". In a later
statement which they issued to the press, they said this was part of "a
more general protest against the increasing marketisation and
commodification of university education". [the camp has always been against the lack of democracy in the way in which management conduct themselves, of which both their actions with regard to Palestine and the Linguistics courses are clear examples. the increasing marketisation and commodification are the root causes of this lack of democracy. This section of text attempts to make it seem as though our ideas are inconsistant by taking a few lines of text out of context. The placards at the camp have clearly explained our reasons for being there from day 1, as have our numerous public statements]
They have been told repeatedly that they are breaching University
regulations. After one week they were asked to leave, and they have refused
to do so. They are knowingly placing themselves at risk of disciplinary
action being taken. And we are now considering what action we will take. [None of this is untrue, but why is it significant? We have always disputed that we are actually breaking the regulations, which if you read the text were clearly written to prevent non-students setting up camps on campus. The right to protest is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, a much more significant piece of legislation than the campus park ordinances, if indeed we are even breaking them]
So why are we considering taking action to remove the students? Why not
just leave them be? At first glance, I can see why some people would ask
this. [so can we. because people tend to get suspicious when people in positions of power threatening those they have power over when they peacefully demonstrate against their polcies]
The answer is simple: the University has a responsibility for the safe and
orderly running of the campus, to the thousands of students and staff on
campus, and to hundreds of visitors. Letting this camp continue unchecked
and unchallenged would be a clear failure to uphold this responsibility. [This paragraph implies that we are some kind of threat to the safety of people on campus or the orderly running of the university. We have recieved no complaints from security that lead us to believe that this is the case, and have in fact been assured several times that it is not]
The University regulations clearly state that tents are prohibited on
University grounds. The University has regulations in place for a good
reason.[as mentioned above, this regulation was written for a completely different purpose, to prevent people from outside the university abusing the grounds. We are all students and have prooved this by showing our IDs on the first day, and again a few days later]
The orderly and safe running of the University is not well served by anyone
choosing to pitch tents and live in them on the University grounds. To put
it simply, the University management is in breach of its own regulations by
allowing this situation to continue.[This is a bare assertion that Farthing doesnt even bother to explain, let alone proove, except by the ridiculous hypothetical example below]
For example, if any harm came to any of the students in the camp or to
anyone visiting the camp (directly, indirectly or indeed by chance), then
it would be the University that would be liable and held responsible for
allowing this to continue unchecked.[hypothetically someone could try to sue the university for this, just as they could try to sue them for any accident that might occur on campus. Realistically though, this is extremely unlikely, and in any case we are sure that Farthing's recent £40,000 pay rise could buy a lot of good legal representation]
I am sorry if this approach seems in any way heavy-handed [couldn't be more so if he were wearing concrete gloves], but not to act
would be a dereliction of our responsibilities in the running of the
University. [I'm sure he beleives this, but again, it is yet to be clearly demonstrated why exactly this is the case]
Michael Farthing
Vice-Chancellor
University management like to project an image of absolute authority backed up with coercive power. But this is largely a smokescreen masking the fact that in reality their legal authority is actually pretty weak. They rely mostly on the consent or indifference of the rest of the university community. If we can demonstrate that they no longer have our consent, that the policies they are trying to push through are not those that the people at this university want, and if we show them that we will simply not allow them to get away with it, this is the first step to removing these anti-democratic market-worshipers from power. There's more of us than there are of them and their own security guards do not support them. Lets show them that we are not intimidated by their childish mind-games.
Peace
