Read on Twitter
Academic freedom can't be defined by the state. If the state gets involved, then academic freedom does not exist.
Reality of course is it actually doesn't exist - the state uses disciplinary mechanisms from the creation of the student consumer to REF to get its way.
But...
Reality of course is it actually doesn't exist - the state uses disciplinary mechanisms from the creation of the student consumer to REF to get its way.
But...
...& this is where the relation between neonationalism and neoliberalism is important, government WANTS to be seen to punish universities.
Arrival of indebted student consumer has encouraged a widespread mentality that universities are merely vehicles for getting jobs.
Arrival of indebted student consumer has encouraged a widespread mentality that universities are merely vehicles for getting jobs.
This is of course a creation of neoliberalism.
But it doesn't *actually* work in itself. The labour market
'levels up' (urgh) in accreditation terms, non-graduate jobs become graduate jobs.
Wage premiums start to diminish.
But it doesn't *actually* work in itself. The labour market
'levels up' (urgh) in accreditation terms, non-graduate jobs become graduate jobs.
Wage premiums start to diminish.
It also doesn't exist in a vacuum and is more important in many ways at the level of consciousness than reality. Fees aren't paid up front and it is debt - but these are the same students who cannot afford to save for a deposit and are living month to month.
The bourgeois dream of the post-war era - that in Prescott's words 'we are all middle class now' is a lie.
But government takes no responsibility for this of course, instead it benefits further. It can 'steer' (Brown and Carasso) unis teaching and learning through consumer cues.
But government takes no responsibility for this of course, instead it benefits further. It can 'steer' (Brown and Carasso) unis teaching and learning through consumer cues.
And when around half of 18-30s have participated in HE, and half haven't, it can stoke a culture war.
Consumer expectations of HE are understandably unreasonable; a survey a few years ago stated that students expected more contact time at university then they had had at school.
Consumer expectations of HE are understandably unreasonable; a survey a few years ago stated that students expected more contact time at university then they had had at school.
This is unreasonable because universities a) simply could never do this and b) it isn't how degree-level education functions BUT it is understandable.
Viewed as a product (I know) most people 'buy' HE once. They have relatively flawed information.
Viewed as a product (I know) most people 'buy' HE once. They have relatively flawed information.
So the natural comparison is with school, which for vast majority is not funded on a fee basis. So they have gone from getting lots of contact for 'free' (out of tax ofc, but how it feels) to not so much comparatively speaking which they pay out of debt.
Given school and uni education now justified in same terms - jobs, jobs, jobs, to quote that Labour graphic - some feel they get a raw deal, & parents get interventionist and aggressive at times.
But now we are in a sweet spot for the govt. Fees protests were over a decade ago.
But now we are in a sweet spot for the govt. Fees protests were over a decade ago.
This is all this generation of students have ever known.
There isn't, for them, a usable past of 'free HE'. This isn't to say there isn't a desire for it, or that younger voters will voter Tory (they generally don't) but that will simultaneously act as consumers. And blame unis.
There isn't, for them, a usable past of 'free HE'. This isn't to say there isn't a desire for it, or that younger voters will voter Tory (they generally don't) but that will simultaneously act as consumers. And blame unis.
Their parents do too, and govt fans this and depoliticises issues such as life chances by using LEO data etc to again blame unis.
Even now 50% of 18-30s do not attend HE. This creates a social divide.
The comprehensive university which should have come, never came.
Even now 50% of 18-30s do not attend HE. This creates a social divide.
The comprehensive university which should have come, never came.
Govt doesn't fail to understand what history or the humanities are - hey know full well. The interventions in respect of fines, free speech champions and all the rest are designed to do a couple of things.
1) Fan flames of culture war to enable voters unsympathetic to unis to see them being 'punished'
2) Fan flames of culture war to ensure the idea of nation is the only 'collective' allowed and that the imagining of the nation is strictly along Conservative lines.
2) Fan flames of culture war to ensure the idea of nation is the only 'collective' allowed and that the imagining of the nation is strictly along Conservative lines.
This is one-party political culture which in turn gives rise to effectively a one-party state.
If Starmer had anything about him he would see this and find a nuanced way to attack govt for dividing society.
If Starmer had anything about him he would see this and find a nuanced way to attack govt for dividing society.
This is not a short-term thing - when I did the book looking at Gove it was clear the attack on educational expertise was a precursor to a more full-throated exposition of Conservative culture war ideology.
Tory think tanks and even Cameron had been promoting Marshall's Our Island Story and the King James Bible even in opposition.
It's not that Tories don't understand history and what historians do; they do, they just see it as a potential threat and want to destroy it.
...all the while benefiting from the disenchantment that the marketised university and a neoliberalised society has wrought.
Claire Ainsley's New Working Class accepts many of the premises of the culture war argument and prior to her appointment by Starmer she wrote an essay for Bright Blue.
Back to academic freedom. In the right-wing onslaught today even my institution is flagged as one with issues around freedom of speech supposedly because of 'cancel culture'.
Katie Hopkins spoke at my institution less than two years ago and was not 'cancelled', despite a strong demonstration of which I was a part outside the building, she got to speak.
Last summer I by title and colleagues by name were attacked in a right-wing magazine as 'anti-racist racists' - because we supported initiatives to decolonize the curriculum.
The issue isn't that right-wing viewpoints are cancelled, it's that government wants them to be commonsensical and unchallenged.
For my work on Brexit, as I have spoken of before, I received death threats.
For my work on Brexit, as I have spoken of before, I received death threats.
After an appearance on the BBC footage of an atrocity was sent to my work email account, and now my email address has been removed from the university website to protect me from this.
As bleak as it is, we can and must resist. But we must not pretend that these things exist without context, or are the results of misunderstanding.
It is about power, and what kind of society this country is, and what it might be. That is what is at stake.
It is about power, and what kind of society this country is, and what it might be. That is what is at stake.
