Universities
should question and criticise
Dick Taylor
School of Continuing Education
Why
should we, as a University community, care about the war
currently being waged by the world’s richest nation
— the USA — against the people of one of the
poorest?
Like
many universities, we have been actively engaged in debates
(and protests) over many other wars since the 1960s. In
my own school, historian and peace campaigner E. P. Thompson,
was a particularly prominent and influential campaigner
in the anti-nuclear movement and in the ‘second wave’
of peace campaigning in the 1980s against Reagan’s
and Thatcher’s militarism. This University, as others,
was galvanized, morally and politically, through debate
and protest against many Cold War adventures and suppressions
of the late 20th century (notably the Vietnam War).
Universities
should surely be characterised, among other things, by
moral concern, and political debate. Yet one of the gloomiest
of Thatcherite (and now Blairite?) legacies seems to be
a lethal mix of apathy, cynicism, and maybe an implicit
acceptance of Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’
thesis.
We
should, surely, be drawing attention to the fallacious
elision by our Government of, on the one hand, detestation
of the terrible events of September 11, the rejection
of the vile regime of the Taliban and the terrorists to
whom they give succour, and, on the other, the prosecution
of a war which is, in effect, against innocent and impoverished
people. Not only is this morally outrageous, it is politically
crass — as CND and a handful of ‘rebel’
Labour MPs have pointed out.
Following
September 11 there was, more or less, a world-wide coalition:
the current killing campaign is rapidly destroying that
unity, inciting racial and religious intolerance and fanaticism,
and doubtless producing hundreds, if not thousands, of
future Bin Ladens. There were — and maybe still are
— alternatives, as those opposed to the war have
pointed out (and as the Leeds A.U.T. motion of November
20 indicates). And there are difficult and contentious
political re-formations to be made, not least over Palestine
and over the West’s continuing support for clearly
corrupt and brutal regimes. These fundamental political
issues, though, are rarely discussed.
The
university system in this country has become perhaps so
identified with utilitarian, conformist and uncritical
perspectives that it is unable or unwilling to take a
critical stand on the matters of principle underlying
such ‘big issues’.
When
it is necessary, universities should question and criticise
governments whose policies run counter to the rational
and moral precepts of democratic society. There can be
little doubt that the present situation demands such protest
from universities. There is, though, precious little indication
that such dissent is being voiced, either by individual
institutions or by our national representative bodies.
Different
terms are fair and practical
Vicky Statler
Estate Services
In
response to Fred Whitaker’s letter (Reporter 472),
estate services has a policy of seeking ‘best value’
and continuous improvement in the provision of its services.
The University follows good industrial relations practice
in protecting employees individually through organisational
change according to management/union agreements. The reality
is that new employees are engaged on different terms and
conditions. This is the only practical and fair way to
make organisational changes.
New
staff who accept posts on advertised terms may subsequently
choose to view this as unfair, but should recognise that
they work for a professional organisation which will do
all that is possible to protect them as employees.
Compensation
for Equitable Life loss
Roger Ward
Mechanical Engineering
Most
colleagues will have heard of the problems being faced
by Equitable Life but may not realise that this directly
affects those members of the University Pensions and Assurance
Scheme who have been paying with-profits additional voluntary
contributions. To date they have lost a year’s growth
of their contributions plus a 16% reduction in their fund
value. PAS members are generally lower-paid support staff
such as technicians and secretaries, and this they can
ill-afford.
While
the University pensions office moved swiftly at the first
sign of trouble to prevent further contributions being
invested in the with-profits fund, the trustees’
advisers have made no recommendations at all in the intervening
ten months while members’ contributions continued
to be whittled away.
Perhaps
the University could consider compensating those members
of the PAS who have sought to improve their standard of
living in retirement using the AVC scheme which it made
available?
Pensions
manager Geoff Parkinson responds:
The
impact of Equitable Life’s problems on the with-profits
AVC funds held by some PAS members is regrettable, and,
as Roger Ward indicates, the University reacted quickly
to avoid these members being further disadvantaged.
Those
who have continued to pay AVCs have been kept fully informed
of the position and the options open to them with regard
to future investments. It has not yet been possible for
the PAS scheme actuary to advise the trustees as to the
best course of action with regard to members’ existing
with-profits funds, since Equitable Life are themselves
still considering their position. The trustees will make
proposals to the members affected as soon as they are
in a position to do so.
Any
form of investment linked to the financial market carries
an element of risk. Although the PAS trustees have made
available a range of alternative AVC funds, they are prevented
from providing advice on the most appropriate form of
investment for individual members. They are not, therefore,
liable to provide compensation in cases where the member’s
chosen investment performs poorly.
