By Joe Williams
The Free Education Society at the University of Sussex has begun the
process of attempting to no confidence the Vice-Chancellor, Alisdair
Smith. Members believe that the actions of the Vice-Chancellor during
his time in administration have been detrimental to the interests of
students, the university, staff and the system of higher education in
general.
One hundred and fifty signatures are required in order for the
student union to hold a cross-campus ballot asking whether students
have faith in Smith's leadership. As Vice-Chancellor, Smith is the
organisation head of the institution and ultimately responsible for
the workings of everything within the University.
One of the major reasons for dissatisfaction with Smith is his long-
standing commitment to tuition fees. As many people know, the
legislation adopted by the Labour government in 1998, which
introduced tuition fees and abolished student grants, has priced out
million of potential students from higher education. He declared his
support in an interview with the Badger two years ago, but it is
perhaps the practical application of his support that has been most
damaging: Sussex has, unlike other universities, militantly excluded
students who find themselves unable to pay their tuition fees. In
comparison, Goldsmith's University in London promised not to throw
out non-payers for a period of five years following intense student
pressure.
Perhaps more worrying is Smith's radical support for differential
or `top-up' fees. Although the government appears to be backing down
over the issue following the huge demonstration in London in
December, such a system would see universities charging students up
to £20,000 a year. Unlike his counterpart at Brighton who has
published a long condemnation of such a system, Smith has
consistently refused to rule them out at Sussex and seems to have
adopted a very vocal campaigning role for their introduction; Smith
has admitted to have been amongst the group of Vice-Chancellors who
met Tony Blair in secret at the end of the last year to argue in
favour of top-up fees.
Smith's time in office has been described as the most destructive in
the history of Sussex. His biggest change has been the abolition of
the school system, which was almost universally opposed by both staff
and students. The school system had helped to build Sussex's global
reputation for interdisciplinary and academic diversity.
Smith's relationship with business has also been questioned. During
his time the entire university ground staff unit was privatised,
despite overwhelming staff opposition and the associated risks to
staff welfare and employment.
Smith is on the board of Sussex Enterprise (amongst numerous other
organisations), the pressure group which campaigns for business
interests. This has been seen as a direct conflict of interest with
his role in supervising the interests of students, staff and the
university.
Smith also commissioned the infamous `library review', which has been
credited with severely disrupting what most consider the most vital
of student resources. Although student pressure prevented the closure
of the world-famous audio-visual counter, the document's counter has
been lost.
For this task, Smith's administration headhunted the same woman who
had headed the University of Ulster library review, where she had
already lost a tribunal over her harassment of members of trade
unions. Having gained her position at Sussex, she forced all library
staff members to reapply for their jobs. Staff were also asked about
their trade union membership in interviews, which is illegal. The
review has also seen the introduction of turnstiles at the library
entrance, designed to keep people who can't pay their tuition fees
(whether registered students or not) from sharing in the rich
resource that is the library – a resource created by public money.
The treatment of staff in relation to the school restructuring has
also attracted much controversy. Certainly the changes will involve
job re-applications and probably redundancies and wage cuts. However,
exact details of maltreatment are often difficult to obtain: staff
are already fearful of their jobs and often unwilling to speak out.
Smith's administration has also seen the increased use of short-term
staff and more experienced students teaching under-graduates, most of
which are on short, ten-week contracts. Although no one would want to
criticise the tremendous efforts of these badly treated staff, the
aim of this move is at its root to decrease full-time staff numbers
at the detriment of education at Sussex.
Smith has consistently denied the pay rise that members of staff have
so badly needed. Unison have been asking for a mere 4 per cent; it
seems that Smith will not accept anywhere near this figure.
Simultaneously, Smith accepted a 26 per cent pay rise for himself two
years ago, taking his salary to a massive £108,000 per year (now
£112,000).
The Badger, the Union's weekly newspaper has already reported the
chronic under funding that the union faces because of the decisions
of senior management. The rent which the university have charged on
Falmer Bar which is run by the student union over the last few years
has been widely recognised as extortionate, but only after prolonged
negotiations with the financially struggling union were the
administration willing to set a fairer rate. Currently, the union
faces insolvency unless the university increases funding.
Beyond this, the university has a long tradition of interfering with
union affairs. Smith's administration attempted to force the union to
sack a democratically elected union official, Education Officer Sarah
Turnbull, in 1999 after she was involved in an occupation in a
personal capacity. This total disdain for democracy on campus was
universally condemned, and the threat eventually withdrawn. Smith and
the senior management are, of course, unelected and there seems to be
no procedure for dissatisfied students and staff to remove him.
Last year, the administration attempted to sack the union's general
manager, Irene Browning. The university, which has to approve all
union salaries, was taking a prolonged period to approve the salary
increases to which members of staff at the union were legally
entitled. When the student union decided to go ahead with these pay
rises taking money from company funds, Smith and his colleagues
suspended Browning pending investigation. After negotiations the
university `allowed' Browning back to work. The affair was largely
seen as an exercise in `muscle-flexing' by the university to
establish greater control over the union, recognising it as one of
the strongest possible opponents to the deeply unpopular and
destructive agenda that Smith and his management team have set
