“We cannot take part in the work of education till we are ourselves deeply imbued with the Communist ideal and unless our thoughts and our desires are constantly turning towards it.” - Sylvia Pankhurst, 1918
On Saturday I went along to the ‘teach-in’ at Kings College London, organised by the
London Education Activists Network. There were quite a few mediocre speeches, a couple actively bad ones, and some good – particularly Terry Eagleton, who decried fees, saying that “no civilized society would sell education to its young people any more than it would sell breast milk to its babies or bandages to the bleeding.”
Nonetheless, there was a huge emphasis on speeches. Some were from activists at strong campaigns like at Tower Hamlets, Sussex and UCL (also, note the good mix of teachers, students and staff in these campaigns). But what was missing was discussion. The space that was left for discussion was in smaller groups in the afternoon, which were actually lectures, and at the end of the closing plenary, a ‘discussion’ which was totally truncated in order to allow time for the passing of the ubiquitous (and ubiquitously pointless) quasi-manifesto, and the usual suspects making repetitive speeches.
This is not how to build a movement to defend education. Educators (both students and lecturers, a distinction which for more and more people is really very fluid) require debate, discussion and the fruitful sharing of ideas. These are the very things which are under attack at the moment. We should be in doubt that what we are facing at the moment is the most savage series of cuts the sector has seen for decades, and possibly the counter policy to everything that followed the
Robbins report of 1963.
Creating alternative educational structures is going to become paramount. This means reading groups, after school clubs, skill sharing (like the excellent Oxford University living wage campaign, which offers English language tuition to staff and cleaners). But first and foremost our fora for political organisation must also be an open and educational moment.
There was an interesting moment in the talk given by Mike Gonzalez in one of the ‘discussion’ sections. Mike is a current Glasgow University professor and a 1968 veteran; the talk was entitled ‘the lessons of 1968.’ However, at the beginning we were arranging the chairs, and there was a visible tension between those wanting to put the chairs in a circle, and other trying to create a lecture room. Some of us wanted a discussion, others just wanted to be back in school. Mike simply turned round and said ‘Let’s get 1968 about this.’ I can only hope that those who sat in rows did so ironically.
Like this article? Print it, email it, Stumble, Facebook and Tweet it:
Reader Comments
For a thorough write-up of the speeches at the sit-in, see Nina Power’s notes here: http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2010/02/notes-from-take-back-education.asp
Yeah I got bored of the speaker-meetings a while ago.
Check out what’s happening at Westminster Uni now:
http://socialistedd.blogspot.com/2010/03/occupation-at-university-of-westminster.html
http://www.fightcutsatuow.blogspot.com/
Richard, I think this is a disappointingly cynical way to see what I thought was a really important day. On the coach from Essex on the way back we had an extensive discussion about what we can do as the way forward.
In the workshop I attended everyone who wanted to speak was able to.
I also want to defend the ‘speeches’. These were people sharing their examples of extremely important struggles with people who genuinely hadn’t heard about them before. I think this was immensely important, and many of the people who had come along with me felt inspired to get active and do something.
Well, my question to Mike was pretty much ignored, and there was no time for a come back. The chair of our discussion (not that we needed one)
The plan of action apparently had no amendments or alternative proposals, but I was never asked for any. There was no discussion of it, even to the extent that the NUS LGBT officer who wanted to put equality on there was basically ignored.
It was good in all sorts of ways, and some of the speeches from campaigners were indeed inspiring. But a network that empowers discussion actually builds stronger groups. people lack skills, all the time. How to discuss democratically, how to listen well, how to allow space for new ideas. Without these skills, groups are weak and campaigns fail.
meant to say:
The chair of our discussion (not that we needed one) let mike go on for 45 mins, and then contributions were only a few minutes each.
People were asked to submit amendments during the opening session.
If the chair of the session let Mike speak too long then that is a failing. The chair should have asked him to wrap up quicker to allow more time for discussion. But actually, I think having a chair massively facilitates a discussion when done properly.
I agree with you that it is important to have groups that empowers discussion. But I don’t think anything that happened on Saturday runs counter to that. There were time constraints, which is unfortunate. We are at the early stages of a loose network. There are all sorts of ways to get involved with it.