TONY PALMER
There is a growing suspicion that students should be seen but not heard, that somehow they have overstepped the limits of their participation in university life and have got to be shouted down lest what they have to say should suddenly be thought relevant. Last Thursday, for example, saw the publication' of the third and final Black Paper on Educa- tion one of whose co-editors was Brian Cox, Professor of English at Manchester Univer- sity. Cox had also intended to publish a letter in the Times signed, he claimed, by 150 academics from British universities, but was short-circuited by the National Union , of Students who leaked his document at their conference and passed a resolution condemn- ing it. Cox then somewhat petulantly allowed the manifesto to be printed elsewhere and gathered to himself a frenzied amount of publicity for his cause. His cause involved prohibiting the sit-in and refusing to negoti- ate with student bodies 'under duress' The wilful destruction of property, the preserva- tion of which is always a prime considera- tion, it seems, is similarly abhorrent to him.
It's difficult to know which camp is the more paranoiac. One motion put before the Nus conference hinted at 'an international conspiracy of reactionary academics' while Professor Cox and his signatories seem fearful of any 'effort to align the university or any of its constituent bodies with any political party or political doctrine.' Cer- tainly, there is some evidence of the former. At last, we're going to put those long-haired students in their place,' one university ad- ministrator told me this week. More than a hundred professors from five countries—the United States. Britain, France, Italy and West Germany—have also formed a com- mittee to protect the standards of teaching and research from the influence of extremist student power. Called the 'League for the Freedom of Science', it claims to he the voice of reason in the explosive situation in the__ universities' and receives money from the West German League of EmploYers Associations. It is strongly supported by the National Democratic High School League. a group associated with the neo-Nazi NIT party. Also in Germany, the 'Federation for Freedom of Learning' has undertaken 1.0 keep the public informed about the `anti: constitutional' method of the 'communist' who wish to use the university t0 -.achieve positions of influence in society and to undermine the democratic order. Then there is the 'International Committee on the
University Emergency' which is partly financed by a Rockefeller Foundation grant and which claims to be sympathetic neither to left nor right. 'There has been extreme polarisation in our universities,' says its organiser, Professor Frankel, Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, 'and we are trying to fill the vacuum in the middle. We stand for civil rights for everybody.'
Alas, such a moderate tone does not per- vade Professor Cox's letter. Sit-ins, he claims, have done much to harm the reputation of universities. On the contrary, they have at last given some hope that universities might return to their original function, namely to inspire argument rather than restrict it didactically. Students, however, accord- ing to Cox, must submit to a predetermined code of behaviour before gaining admission. How is this code of behaviour to be deter- mined? Cox does not say. He talks of 'free- dom' in the academic community. But for whom? Clearly not for the students. Per- haps he would be happier, and the university would run much more smoothly, if there were no students at all. And why are the students smashing up university property? Out of some blood-lust? Vice-President Agnew obviously thought so when he ap- peared on the Frost show. The Kent killings were unfortunate, he said, but quite under- standable in the property-wrecking atmo- sphere of the previous four days. Naughty students breaking windows indeed. Frost. in a loud check suit, sniggered in agreement. Both 'failed to explain or even ask why it was that the students had broken the win- dows in the first place. Freedom-loving Pro- fessor Cox uses words like 'unacceptable,' `incompatible,' `penalties: He says that 'British universities have main- tained the highest reputation for academic freedom.' Like Dr Adams at the LSE? Like the sixty-five students sent down from British universities last year for smoking marijuana? Like the 60 per cent of all Oxbridge sttra dents who went to public schools?
What rights should the student have? If they are over eighteen. they can vote, get married, be sent to prison for life. The fact that they get an annual grant from the tax- payer to attend university is irrelevant. They pay tax like everyone else, They are entitled to a grant just as someone is entitled to free National Health treatment even if this some- one has hardly begun paying income tax. They also have a right to he consulted over the financial and academic management of their affairs. Where else is such a right for- bidden? On the factory floor? No, because the worker is protected by a union which can call a strike on his behalf. In local government? No. because the ratepayer can vote out the local councillor. Only in an authoritarian, hierarchical society does the student/worker/ratepayer have no rights. Cox's communiqué, therefore, far from add- ing to the debate, merely stifles it. Respect for the law which he clearly values so highly is not necessarily respect for justice. Maybe the whole purpose of a university needs re- defining. I went to speak (debate?) at. the Oxford Union recently. I couldn't help thinking as each speaker recited or read his tatty collection of second-hand observations that this was a totally outmoded chamber for discussion. There was no discussion. no interchange of ideas. It was a farce in three acts, a charade, a club. Interestingly. it is the hierarchy at Oxford who are most anxious to Preserve this ahsurdity. The students. for the Most part, stay away. because it just isn't happening there—any more.
Previous page
