1. J.R.Clynes on the way forward in the NUS-backed national rent strike 2. Nina Thomas, one of those victimised, on the expulsions at Lancaster University Some 25 colleges will be on rent strike at the beginning of next term. This means that 19 colleges are joining those six which have been on strike since last October protesting against big increases in accommodation charges. This is an extremely sharp response to the decision by the last NUS conference to go for a national rent strike. Funnily enough, however, these rent strikes are directed at an increase in student grants. It says worlds for the character of the last NUS Conference that such a tactic was rejected to further the fight against accommodation charges. Nonetheless, the NUS leadership is committed to fight a grants campaign based upon a national rent strike.
Compared with the sort of campaign conducted last time, this could be a tremendous step forward. Then, the central feature of the campaign was the attempt to win the hearts of the nation's student landladies by inviting them to tea. This was combined with other wild activities like making representations to the local Conservative Educational Group. This of course is not to mention the lobby of Parliament. It came as a bit of a surprise to the NUS leadership, although not to anyone else, that this campaign was singularly ineffective. The adoption of more militant tactics is partially a reaction to that last campaign. But more importantly it is a consequence of the acuteness with which the rationalisations in the colleges are beginning to be felt. However more militant tactics are not enough. To hit the root of the problem needs a different understanding of what is going on than that provided by NUS conference and the NUS/CP leadership GRANTS AND ACCOMMODATION We have analysed previously the reorientation of higher education to the needs of capitalist industry. Part of this process has been a continual paring and encroachment on costs. In the present situation of historic crisis of profits, this operates more acutely.
Thus the restructuring of higher education itself becomes more and more simultaneously Robbins expansion (primarily sumptuous new universities) with the present Thatcher White Paper ten years later. At the same time, however, there is also the cutting back on unit costs which has resulted in high costs of student accommodation over the past period and the deterioration in the value of the student grant. This latter has come to be felt in an acute way. The immediate cause of this stems from the recent implementation of various ways of restructuring the costs of higher education by the bourgeoisie.
RESTRUCTURING OF COSTS The main disagreement at NUS conference was that between the CP position, which wished to Two students at Lancaster University were expelled for a year at the end of last term for heckling at a meeting of a well-known Monday Club member Ronald Bell, M.P. Why has the Lancaster administration been prepared to come down so heavily, and is it prepared and able to uphold this vicious attack on the left? What are the problems facing the University administration?
After the Thatcher proposals were dropped, the job of dealing with political problems in the colleges was left to individual college authorities. Our Vice-Chancellor, Charles Carter, during a year of struggle over the victimisation of several members of staff in Lancaster, was fairly successful in terms of the net result the staff concerned were not reinstated. However, he suffered considerable criticism inside and outside the University from his handling of these affairs. While he unfortunately has the initiative he still has the problem that these issues are combatted by student mobilisation. A thread running through his annual report delivered to University Council this autumn, therefore, was that in dealing with student "troubles" it is reasonable to pick out and punish a small number of students for the actions of a large number.
BALANCE OF FORCES In the last couple of years, Lancaster students have been involved in a number of quite high level struggles. In all these, the college authorities were decisively beaten. Last year, however, This was largely the result of an inadequate CP leadership which refused to base itself on the struggles of the mass of students but instead attempted to win over "public opinion'. The shoddy compromises see the notional element in the grant set aside for accommodation (which at the moment stands at £240) brought up to the average £260 price of hall accommodation, and an amendment calling for a claim' for £100 (to restore the value of the grant to the 1962 position). Such a debate exhibits immense confusion as to the real nature of the problem.
The problem is not simply that of the erosion of the value of the student grant. Rather it is the effects of the way the bourgeoisie is restructuring the payment of the costs of higher education which has to be confronted. The most easily identifiable instances of this are the DES strictures on self-financing of catering, which have led to the recent huge price increases and worker redundancy; and the policy of "Loan Financing' whereby a portion of the cost of future student residences are incorporated into the present charge for hall accommodation. It is through such measures, to apportion some of the costs of higher education to students (and workers), that the present problem arises in such an acute way. To go simply for an increase in the student grant, even if tied closely to rises in the cost of living index, will do nothing to tackle the root cause of the problem. It is not at all out of the question that the bourgeoisie will permit an increase in the student grant. This accounts for the disagreements between the Committee of Vice Chancellors and the Government/DES - the Vice Chancellors pressing for such an increase. What they are both united on, however, is over the restructuring of the costs. It is this latter which has to be taken up.
The central aim of the struggle, then, should be to prevent this restructuring being effected by be the refusal to allow the bourgeoisie to sort out its own problems concerning the financing of higher education at the expense of students. The same thing goes of course in defence of college workers. Clearly, it would completely vitiate the aim of the struggle to separate out the grants question from that of price rises, accommodation charges and redundancies. The bourgeoisie sees them as connected questions; so should we.
METHOD OF STRUGGLE When looked at from this overall point of view, it is quite clear that college authorities are equally as implicated in the determination of student conditions as are the Government/DES. We should not be misled by protestations of support on the grants question. The beginnings of a correct attitude to the college authorities was ondof the useful implications of the decision No price rises! for a national rent strike. But we have to develop No redundancies! this implication in a consistent fashion. What we have to insist is that the struggles of which were concocted and the opportunities thereby lost have led to demoralisation, This was shown at the beginning of last term when SRC, our Student Union, was presented with a bill for £600 for damages caused during the struggles last year. We agreed to pay part of it, when it should have been clear that all the responsibility for what happened rested on the shoulders of the administration. It may have been this sign of weakness that has encouraged Carter to go on to the offensive against students.
DEFENDERS OF 'FREE SPEECH'? In the present case the authorities were supposedly concerned with "free speech'. Perhaps the authorities concern for this question can be pinpointed if we look at the fate of a report of last year's events, drawn up by elected students and representatives from ASTMS for presentation to the University Court. This was rejected both for publication and then, after we had published it ourselves, for discussion. As one outside" member of the Court, Councillor. Poyser commented - "It is my impression.. that an excuse is being made not to accept their report. I feel you have ignored their feelings and held back free discussion.
The point is that there is no abstract freedom of speech such as that which the University rules pretend to protect. What we have to fight is the idea that in any way the University is neutral, and precisely challenge the power that it has to define the way things are organised and in whose interests.
Even more, in the case of Ronald Bell we are dealing with an extreme right wing member of the Monday Club, closely associated with the ation charges, in solidarity with worker ted undancies and so on as well as the rent strikes should be the basis of the campaign. It is around the actions of the mass of students on the basis of a rejection of the attempts of the State to solve its problems at our expense that alliances can begin to be forged. We don't look around for allies and then decide what the basis for struggle is afterwards, as has been the case with the NUS/CP leadership in the past.
It is through militant forms of struggle with the rent strikes as a focus (mass boycott of refectories, demonstrations, occupations) that the issue can be raised in such a way as to provide a focus for us to be able to win over our real friends - the mass of the working class. Such struggles are positively excluded by linking up with college authorities - not to mention the way in which such a strategy actually raises a barrier to any meaningful alliance with the working class.
Any campaign must be based on what is happening in the colleges, not on some struggle which is supposedly happening elsewhere around Parliament or DES committees - or, worse, on the basis of waiting for the return of a Labour Government. It is not true that the essential political questions (the capitalist organisation of education) can only be raised and affected in struggle around Parliament or elections. They can be raised and fought over here and now in the colleges themselves. Indeed because the vanguard of the working class is not organised in the Labour Party, the issues upon which we are concerned won't become recognised by the working class in any other way. It is only as an adjunct to the struggles in the colleges that the question of elections and Parliament should the bourgeoisie. The basis for the struggle should be raised. Not as a substitute for such a struggle. NUS AND STUDENT UNIONS In all this, the role of student unions and NUS come to the fore. It is absolutely vital that student unions organise the struggle in the colleges and that we get real leadership and perspectives from the NUS. Without doubt the ties of the student unions to the college bureaucracies and the lack of real democracy in many of the unions will be a real barrier in the struggle. Inevitably, these questions will have to be confronted during the course of the struggle. This isunfortunate but a necessity given that these questions have not been sorted out when they should have been in preparation for what is indeed the beginning of big new struggles in higher education.
Against 'Loan Financing"!
Against self financing!
£100 on the grant, tied to the cost of living! End discrimination against married women! the mass of students over price rises, accommod. End discretionary awards - grants for all students!
National Front, who advocates strong state repression of students and workers. Bell and his kind are concerned precisely to deny free speech to those that are critics of capitalism and especially to those that wish to see capitalism overthrown. It is absolutely vital to prevent these elements from rallying support in the colleges, as anywhere else. PRECEDENT Only six students out of the 200 or more who came to the Ronald Bell meeting were picked out; two cases were dismissed (having presented witnesses to the investigators that they were "moderates") two were dealt with summarily and fined £4 and £5; the remaining two, both known militants and members of revolutionary organisations, were expelled for a year. I for one was never offered summary proced ure but my case was taken directly to the University tribunal.
If Lancaster University authorities get away with these expulsions, a dangerous precedent is set both here and in other Colleges, as intimidation and weakness follow. It is unlikely that it will remain isolated. Already we have seen what has happened at Stirling. But the situation at Portsmouth Poly also needs close watch. Precisely the same manoeuvre seems to be afoot here. Any successful attack can weaken the whole student body.
Lancaster student federation has called on NUS to generalise the fight if our appeal on the 1lth January is unsuccessful, and there is every indication that the University will remain firm. We therefore call on all students for messages of solidarity through their Unions and their support in further action we need to take.