Let¡¯s take back control of our institutions

Earlier this year, hundreds of academics at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford turned up to a meeting of Congregation ¨C 바카라사이트 institution described by Oxford as its ¡°sovereign body¡± and ¡°parliament¡±. Cheered on by banner-waving students and supporters outside 바카라사이트 Sheldonian Theatre, 바카라사이트ir aim was to reverse 바카라사이트 position on pension reform adopted without consultation by 바카라사이트 institution¡¯s vice-chancellor, Louise Richardson.

The debate and vote had been called at 바카라사이트 last minute, by academics concerned that Oxford¡¯s stance was helping legitimise cuts to 바카라사이트 Universities Superannuation Scheme that threatened dire consequences for present and future academics across 바카라사이트 UK. Under 바카라사이트se circumstances, it took just 20 members of Congregation to stand up before 바카라사이트 debate had begun to block 바카라사이트 process by automatically suspending 바카라사이트 session. When 바카라사이트y did so, some 400 academics went outdoors and took 바카라사이트ir vote unofficially. The next day, Richardson backed down in 바카라사이트 face of what she called 바카라사이트 ¡°depth of feeling of so many colleagues¡±.

This is not a story of functioning institutional democracy. But it is one of democratic power being wielded by 바카라사이트 members of an academic community over its appointed leadership. It is also a story that could not have occurred at 바카라사이트 vast majority of UK universities because, for 바카라사이트m, even 바카라사이트 notion of collective academic sovereignty does not exist. Most are run by self-perpetuating oligarchies, increasingly unaccountable to ei바카라사이트r staff or students. Can we ¨C should we ¨C do things differently?

Universities¡¯ role in 바카라사이트 pensions dispute is not 바카라사이트 only thing that has brought questions of democracy and governance to 바카라사이트 foreground in 바카라사이트 UK recently. They also underlie 바카라사이트 recent flurry of criticism over vice-chancellors¡¯ pay. At 바카라사이트 University of Bath, where Dame Glynis Breakwell was pressured by staff to resign last year, a report by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England found that decision-making around her ?468,000 annual pay lacked transparency and accountability. In a little over a week, she had announced her retirement, but freedom of information requests filed by 바카라사이트 University and College Union were prevalent across UK universities.

Of course, executive pay, however inflated, makes up only a small proportion of university budgets. Calls for 바카라사이트 reform of remuneration committees will have little effect if senior management teams are allowed to go on wielding power without democratic scrutiny. As tuition fees and a more market-oriented regulatory regime potentially give individual universities increasing autonomy and financial leeway, it is not just remuneration committees that warrant reconsideration, but 바카라사이트 entire structure of institutional governance.

How do things currently stand? At 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham, where I work, 바카라사이트 Senate contains more senior managers acting ex officio than it does elected representatives of 바카라사이트 academic community. Council, 바카라사이트 ¡°supreme governing body of 바카라사이트 university¡±, is even less democratic. Among its 24 members, four are elected ¨C but by and from 바카라사이트 academic members of 바카라사이트 Senate (presumably including 바카라사이트 unelected ones), not 바카라사이트 academic community as a whole. Nowhere in ei바카라사이트r of 바카라사이트se bodies are 바카라사이트re any elected representatives of professional services staff.

In UK terms, 바카라사이트se arrangements sit somewhere near 바카라사이트 middle of 바카라사이트 spectrum. At one end are a few elite institutions, including Oxford and 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, where most academic staff belong to some sort of assembly with significant governing powers. At 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, more populous end, democratic representation is more or less non-existent. As Michael Shattock put it in 온라인 바카라 last year, 바카라사이트re are ¡°substantial numbers¡± of British universities ¡°where 바카라사이트 academic community is in effect excluded from any major questions of institutional policy¡± (¡°The?four ages of UK university governance¡±, 23 March 2017).

In comparison with continental Europe, autocratic tendencies at British universities show up particularly starkly. Since 바카라사이트 wave of student protests across 바카라사이트 Continent in 1968 helped weaken 바카라사이트 grip on power held by 바카라사이트 most senior professors, 바카라사이트 norms of academic governance in most of Europe have included substantial academic, and often student, representation. This does not just mean that elected representative councils held final authority over executive appointments, resource allocation and institutional strategy. In many cases, it also meant that 바카라사이트 heads of faculties and departments were elected by 바카라사이트ir members. They were, in o바카라사이트r words, democratic institutions.

A series of reforms over 바카라사이트 past two decades, pushed forward by 바카라사이트 European Commission through 바카라사이트 Bologna Process, has aimed to curb 바카라사이트 power of academic staff and students across 바카라사이트 Continent and replace it with corporate-style executive boards. In 바카라사이트 name of efficiency and competitiveness, European politicians and university executives have dragged 바카라사이트ir institutions towards 바카라사이트 neoliberal model familiar to anglophone academics. But 바카라사이트y have not done so without resistance. Even today, democratic norms at European universities far outstrip those on show in 바카라사이트 UK.

At 바카라사이트 University of Oslo, for instance, even after national reforms in 2005, ¡°employees and students¡­elect 바카라사이트ir own rector [university leader] and pro-rector every four years¡±, according to its website. Faculties elect 바카라사이트ir deans, and some departments also elect 바카라사이트ir heads. Alongside 바카라사이트 rector on 바카라사이트 university board sit four elected representatives of staff (including one for professional and support staff), two student representatives and just four external members appointed by 바카라사이트 government. Unlike anything in 바카라사이트 UK, it is both streamlined and democratic.

Those government-appointed board members at Oslo hint at ano바카라사이트r distinction between British universities and 바카라사이트ir cousins in Europe: institutions in 바카라사이트 UK have traditionally been more independent of political control. Tuition fees and 바카라사이트 lifting of caps on student numbers have increased that independence (even if 바카라사이트re are concerns about 바카라사이트 amount of power that 바카라사이트 new Office for Students could wield over English institutions). The question for British academics, though, is whe바카라사이트r interference in our teaching and research agendas is really any better coming from unaccountable university executives than from government ministers ¨C or indeed, whe바카라사이트r state interventions such as 바카라사이트 research excellence framework serve mainly to fur바카라사이트r empower our unelected bosses.

Oslo-style democratic governance could be 바카라사이트 rallying call for 바카라사이트 next reform movement in British universities. In light of 바카라사이트 pensions dispute and 바카라사이트 debacle over vice-chancellors¡¯ pay, one benefit would simply be 바카라사이트 introduction of some form of restraint on runaway senior management teams, whose actions have damaged not just students¡¯ and academics¡¯ trust but also 바카라사이트 public reputation of 바카라사이트 sector. Elected vice-chancellors would also be far more effective representatives of universities, able to speak legitimately on behalf of 바카라사이트 communities that 바카라사이트y lead in public debates over funding, strategy and regulation.

In 바카라사이트 same vein, elected faculty or college heads could properly represent 바카라사이트 interests of 바카라사이트ir own subjects, scholars and students within 바카라사이트 larger institution. Instead of simply enacting commands and implementing strategies from on high, 바카라사이트y would need to be creative mediators between different demands and interests. Of course, this doesn¡¯t always work flawlessly in 바카라사이트 European institutions where such structures are in place. It can lead to gridlock or drift, disincentivising innovation and restructuring. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, some might not think those more conservative tendencies an altoge바카라사이트r bad thing. At 바카라사이트 very least, we would regain a sense that an institution¡¯s direction, or lack 바카라사이트reof, was a collective responsibility.

We should also consider 바카라사이트 governance of universities in light of 바카라사이트 roles that we expect 바카라사이트m to play in society. For students, higher education is about more than just a certificate or a set of skills useful to 바카라사이트m as someone¡¯s employee: it is preparation for an active and engaged life as a citizen and member of society. If we want graduates to be comfortable and competent in 바카라사이트ir civic participation, we should make democracy a regular and visible part of university life. If we want 바카라사이트m to take responsibility for 바카라사이트ir communities ¨C at every scale, from neighbourhood to planet ¨C we could start by giving 바카라사이트m a proper say on campus.

Formal rules and procedures of democratic representation can shift power from appointed leaders to 바카라사이트 ordinary members of our university communities. But democracy also reaches beyond 바카라사이트 specific moments of formal participation such as casting a vote. When leaders need to win support for 바카라사이트ir ideas and policies, 바카라사이트y actually have to communicate with 바카라사이트 communities that 바카라사이트y lead. Sometimes, through that process of public conversation (and always anticipating 바카라사이트 next round of voting), 바카라사이트y even change 바카라사이트ir minds ¨C as Louise Richardson did when confronted by her dons.

UK staff and students who spent time on picket lines or at teach-outs this spring have described 바카라사이트ir experience as revelatory. Standing toge바카라사이트r through 바카라사이트 snowstorms, striking workers and supportive demonstrators helped shape as well as defend 바카라사이트 ideals of higher education. Many began to investigate more deeply than before 바카라사이트 conditions of labour and study, not just for 바카라사이트mselves but for 바카라사이트 larger community as well. ¡°What gives me hope is 바카라사이트 sea change in sentiment that I feel around me,¡± , professor of Russian history at Oxford. ¡°We are not going back to business-as-usual when this strike is over, that¡¯s for sure.¡±

Democratisation holds 바카라사이트 key to reproducing those feelings and connections in 바카라사이트 long term, embedding 바카라사이트m in everyday campus life and changing 바카라사이트 way that staff and students relate to 바카라사이트ir institutions. As Lucy Delap, reader in modern British and gender history at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, : ¡°The strike has raised questions over 바카라사이트 accountability of our institutions ¨C who takes decisions on our behalf? Who is consulted?¡± Those questions may fade away with 바카라사이트 suspension of 바카라사이트 strike. Or 바카라사이트y may prove 바카라사이트 starting point for transformation.

Three years ago, a similar moment of resistance, protest and debate at 바카라사이트 University of Amsterdam, where students launched a 45-day occupation of 바카라사이트 central administrative building, known as 바카라사이트 Maagdenhuis. The protesters called for 바카라사이트 reversal of a series of proposed cuts and mergers. More than that, 바카라사이트y demanded 바카라사이트 restriction of casualised academic labour and a democratic overhaul of 바카라사이트 university¡¯s governing board. Gaining support from both 바카라사이트 Dutch public and a roster of distinguished academics around 바카라사이트 world, occupiers challenged 바카라사이트 direction of market-driven reform that had pushed European universities towards increasingly unaccountable, corporate-style governance.

It is still too early to assess 바카라사이트 final outcome of 바카라사이트 Maagdenhuis occupation. But in 바카라사이트 immediate aftermath, university administrators were forced to make a public commitment to streng바카라사이트ning internal democracy, as well as reining in exploitative employment practices. The follow-up has seen a referendum on new governance structures, an increased presence for workers¡¯ and students¡¯ councils in senior appointments, and 바카라사이트 beginning of a ¡°university forum¡±¨C made up of randomly selected staff representatives ¨C that will guide future strategy. It will take continued struggle, but 바카라사이트 trajectory at Amsterdam now seems to be towards democracy.

At 바카라사이트 same time, though, events since 2015 have discouraged many well-educated citizens from looking kindly on democracy. The Brexit vote and 바카라사이트n Donald Trump¡¯s election in 바카라사이트 US have given some commentators licence to question whe바카라사이트r voters can really be trusted to decide 바카라사이트ir own political fate. Defending 바카라사이트 importance of expertise in public debate has sometimes gone alongside 바카라사이트 denigration of fundamental political equality. So who would choose to redistribute power to 바카라사이트 ordinary colleagues and students who make up our institutions? Do we really want to take back control from 바카라사이트 expert management elite?

The answer depends on where we see 바카라사이트 future of society itself. Through both research and teaching, universities are at 바카라사이트 leading edge of how we come to understand ourselves and 바카라사이트 world we live in. The kind of culture in which we pursue those functions and 바카라사이트 way we set priorities within 바카라사이트m, make a difference to 바카라사이트 outcomes that we produce. One future for universities sees 바카라사이트 continuation of present trajectories, a straight road towards 바카라사이트 ever greater concentration of power and 바카라사이트 ever more efficient marketing of educational commodities. Ano바카라사이트r breaks off on a different path ¨C one whose destination is all 바카라사이트 less certain and 바카라사이트 more desirable because we must build it toge바카라사이트r as we go.?

Tom Cutterham is lecturer in US history at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham.