The document Fight for Education is slight (the average length of commissioned contributions is 3 pages), ignorant (Conquest interprets Marcuse as arguing "toleration oppression'), and vapid (No society can abandon all toughness in its educational system without, in the end, becoming soft itself". Angus Maude MP.) It is full of insipid moralising, and references to vague 'qualities" which are cloaked by a posture of rigorous examination. Hysterically anti-student, it can only interpret militancy as trying to destroy all society, bring down order, reject all values. It judges society, education, and students by the same insubstantial categories, or rather phrases, that it thinks 'intelligence' is made up of. A •mish-mash of rubbish from an elite posing as an elite. The word capitalism appears once, in a list of notions held by students. Not a single contributor grasps the relationship of education to the social relations of production, let alone defends it. So even from the point of view of the bourgeoisie this document useless.
contributors drawn trom a sub-culture founded on a parochial reading of literature and the Bible, and are utterly barren. C. M. Johnson sums it up when he ends his article with a quotation from Wordsworth:
*Me this unchartered freedom tires;
I feel the weight of chance desires:
My hopes no more must change their name, 1 long for a repose that ever is the same.
Bryan Wilson's conclusion on the student movement also tells us more about the authors than about its subject: *... perhaps behind the nebulous, self-contradictory idealism, there lurks self-interest and wounded hopes for personal advantage as well as confusion and the search for meaning and identity?"
Pity the students and statf at Bangor whose Professor of history Call write a historic
----- pull-quotes -----
Against expansion, against technological and economic development, the conclusions of the