16 of us (staff and students) met with Joan Ruddock (MP for
Lewisham-Deptford) that afternoon, and 16 of us (staff and students). We
all spoke to her about HE cuts for 30-45 minutes. Here are some of our
arguments and her responses:
We said that the underfunding of higher education was making it difficult
for working-class students in her constituency to go to university. One of
the members of our delegation was a student from a working-class
background who had grown up in the area, and is now currently over £20,000
in debt; she told JR about her personal situation. Another student
mentioned that he also comes from a low-income background, and that the
fees are causing considerable financial hardship (to which JR responded
that he would not even been able to attend university in her time). The
President of the Goldsmiths Students' Union said that people now make the
decision about where to go to university based on cost, not on
intellectual curiosity—and this very fact turns education into a
commodity. We asked JR if she herself had to pay for her education. JR
acknowledged that she did not, but that she was part of a 'tiny minority',
implying that top-up fees were the necessary trade-off for the expansion
of education.
We raised the issue of the fees review panel, particularly the prominent
role given to business leaders, and the exclusion of UCU and NUS. We said
that the composition of the panel meant they were very likely to recommend
a fees increase. JR said that this was not necessarily the case, but did
not make any arguments to the contrary.
We said that as teachers we want to teach as many students as possible who
have the desire to learn, but that this is prevented by the fine for
accepting extra students. We also mentioned that 25% of prospective
students were denied places this year. JR simply said that there was
nothing she could do and insisted that Labour had funded higher education
generously in the past.
We also said that France and Germany have made higher education part of their stimulus packages, and questioned the wisdom of the UK's refusal to do the same. JR argued that there are higher taxes in France and Germany, and that higher taxes hurt poor people. We asked about raising taxes for wealthier people or for corporations. JR mentioned that a 50% tax rate was being implemented and that higher corporate tax would cause companies to leave the UK.
Finally, we questioned government priorities, and argued that scrapping
Trident or the ID card scheme could pay for higher education. She said
that both schemes were a fait accompli and nothing could be done. She also
repeatedly argued that the NHS was more important than higher education
because it meant the difference between life and death for some.
Overall, we were struck by the contradiction between JR's rhetoric (in
which she tried to appear sympathetic) and her complete unwillingness to
do anything about the situation; many of her responses were a defence of
the status quo. There was another, ideological contradiction between her
(apparent) desire to help the poor, and her resistance to measures such as
higher taxes for corporations and wealthier individuals. The discourse she
used was an individualising one: she compared a national economy to a
household, and saw higher student fees as 'individuals contributing to
their own education'.
This leads to two main points:
1) We need a high-profile media campaign about the value and necessity of
accessible, publicly funded higher education. We need to make the case
that higher education is not a frill or a luxury.
2) We need to continue to put serious pressure on JR and other
politicians, as they wil not listen unless there is broad public
opposition. This is where we need a political campaign.
Any questions? email us at gucu-admin@gold.ac.uk.
