It was the prevarication of the University authorities and their refusal to pay attention to the veiwsof staff and students about a future social building that caused the Warwick students to take direct action. The discovery of incriminating material in the administra tion's files changed the main issue, however, to that of political repression, an d in particular that of keeping political files on staff and students.
The files found indicated that the univers ity authorities had attemped to force out of the country a left-wing lecturer, that they had been involved with spying on meetings not of the revolutionary left, but of the Labour Party. Gilbert Hunt, a director of Rootes Motors who sits on university council, wrote to Warwic's Vice Chancellor "My dear Jack, At my request Mr. N° P' Catchpole, our director of legal affain, attended a meeting of the Coventry Labour Party on March 3rd. wheth was adressed by Dr. D' Montgomery. As you will see from the attached notes of the meeting nothing was said by him which would involve prosecution under the 1919 Abens Restriction Act, but l felt that it was advisable for you to have a copy of these notes for your confidential files. Sincerely Gilbert.
Correspondence between the headmaster of William Eilis School, London, and the University showed that a potential student had been refused admittance because of his political activity. The Headmaster, Sydney L. Baxter, wrote of the student "he is now a committee member of the Schools Action Group, engaged in the organising of protests and demonitrations concerning School Government. Hir name appeared in the Times Educational Supplement of the 10th January expressing hit intention to embark on militant action where necessary. "Ifelt that it was important that you should be aware of this in making your decision. 1 would prefer thir communication to be treated very confidentially. * Written at the bottom of this letter was Reject this man J,8.8."* (These are the initiah of Warweik's Vice Chancellor.) A letter from the Registra to Baxter said The Vice Chancellor bar asked me to say how very obliged we were to you for writing in this way. We really are most grateful to yout -You may wish to know privately - that the course selector has decided not to maice an offer in this case.
A series of documents were found concerning three students of the university who handed out S.A.U. leaflets outside a local school. A opy of the leaflet was sent to Butterworth by he chairsan of the local education committee. who also contacted Dudley Smtih and Enoch Powell about the leafleting. Smith thought "the leaflet reveals an interesting state of affairs," Powell that "it would be interesting to know who it it, in fact, who liver at the address in question at Kenilworth (the address gaven on the leaflet. P&S.) and what lies behind the whole operation." Minutes of the weekly meetings of the Officer of the Council (a meeting which does not formally take place under the constitution of the university and one wheih was unheard of before we opened no legal power to do so. Of one of the Warwick"
from the Warwick Registery modern capitalist society.
by the files discovered at Warwick. The discussion. are made to exclude socialists from the Universities.
The injunctions have failed to achieve this end. The publication throughout the country of the documents found at Warwick has shown that if one is determined and not alone one can fight and win against the capitalists' attacks on the democratic rights of free speech and of free publication.
The mistake has been made over and over again during the past two weeks of seeing the events at Warwick in isolation - out of political context so to speak. Warwick is not an bolated exampie. It represents, as perhaps the most advanced example, a general trend whelh is ecoming more and more obvious as time goes y. E. P. Thompson made the same mistak in his article in New Society and the bourgeois peshas been masterfully striving to maintain the illusion.
The events at Warwick (and of course at all the other univensities round the country such as Manchester and Edinborough) must be seen in the context of a desparate attempt by the bourgecisie to regain fall control of education and to cut costs. Also in the same context must be seen the Black Papers, the refusal to pay teachers more and, of course, the recently published Department of Education and Science proposals for Higher Education.
Let us consider the Department of Educatio n and Science proposals more closely. There are thirteen main proposals and without an exception they are intended to cut down the cost of education (Education is the highest investment in Britain today) The proposals are as follows:1) a reduction or removal of the student grantaid, coupled with a system of loans: 2) a similar policy at post-graduate level only; 3) a more restrictive policy as regards the admission of overseas students; 4) the requirement that grant-aided students should enter specified kinds of employment after graduation, which might have the effect of reducing aplications; 5) the greater us of part-time correspondence courses as alternatives to full-time courses; 6) the possibility that the most able should hare the opportunity to complete a degree course in two years, 7) the possibility of some students not proceeding to the customary course of three years, but to a different course lasting only two years and leading to a different qualification, 8) the posuble insertion of a greater period between school and university, which would give school leavers a better opporunity to formulate their views as to whether ornot they wished to proceed to some form of higher 9) the more intensive use of buildings and equipment, including the possibility of the recrganisation of the academic year; JO) more sharing of facilities between adjacent institutions; 12) more homo-based students; 12) the development of student housing associations, and other forms of loan financed provision for student residence; 15) some further increase in statE/student ratio.
The events at Warwick and the above mentioned proposals are the two main prongs of the bourgeois attack on higher education. Both of these have, of course, the secondary objective of helping to eliminate student unrest However, the D.E.S. proposals clearly show the dichotomy which foes the ruling class at the They are torn between the need for stilled manpower and the cost of the investment needed to obtain that skilled manpower.
The struggle at Warwick has been one of great importanceto the student movement nationally. It has revealed the class nature of the university and has forced the ruling-class to demonstrate the use of their ropressive state machinery.
The emential thing now is that the link between these events at Warwick and the politi cal context of the struggle is pointed out to the mass of the students.
John Presland Paul Sheviin