Thursday 8 December 2011

Initial statement, more thoughts to follow




Why we're leaving


A group of students have been occupying the management corridor for almost 200 hours. They took possession of this space last Wednesday with the purpose of applying pressure to the Senior Management Team (SMT) to respond to demands outlined in the Principal’s Pledge. This document insists that Principal Paul Layzell publicly condemns the White Paper on Higher Education, halts all plans to cut academic departments and remove threats of redundancy to college staff.

We are vacating the occupation for a few reasons. We do not feel that legal proceedings have been a last resort. Rather, negotiations were undermined by the intimidation caused when SMT sought to take their students to the High Court rather than meaningfully discuss their concerns and demands.

Professor Layzell unilaterally suspended negotiations on Monday with the occupiers, after only two meetings, despite persistent appeals to reopen dialogue. He insists that he has spent “many, many hours” dealing with these students, yet over the course of the week we have been in occupation, he has only deigned to meet directly with us twice for no more than an hour on each occasion. We believe his continued hostility to productive discussion is indicative of the perverse management culture in place at Royal Holloway, where planned reforms are shrouded in secrecy and consultations are reduced to “farcical exchanges” (as described by the UCU) stage-managed by the SMT. Rather than engage in frank discussion with his own students, Professor Layzell has instead belittled our aims and defamed the respectable purpose of the occupation in communications with the student body. He has preferred to take costly legal action against us over the free option of negotiation.

Senior management have botched the consultation and negotiation process despite hiring an extortionately costly restructuring consultant. Senior management seem to mistake stating where they disagree and agree with an injured party as negotiation, and then plough on with their original policies (see the SMT’s initial response to the pledge).
Furthermore, they hide behind the white paper to justify cuts that they were beginning to implement before the tuition fees vote was decided.
They have additionally pressured the Students’ Union and the UCU to withdraw their support for us through alleged harassment and attempts to meet in non recorded meetings.

One of the final actions in the conclusion of the occupation, which is generally indicative of management’s short-sightedness was when it was indicated that the the vital annual college fund, which students rely on, would not be allocated if they were not assigned the room they had asked Occupy RHUL to provide.
These actions amount to nothing less than blackmail, and as such we believe that it is not efficient to remain in this occupation.

What we’ve achieved with occupation


The main purpose of the occupation, to have sensible adult discourse with senior management and to make the case against cuts, was derailed by the SMT refusing to negotiate. However we feel that the occupation has been justified by putting the issues and facts of the abhorrent cuts on the table with the student body and staff.

In addition we have put serious pressure onto the Senior Management Team, and demonstrated to the staff and student body where the SMT’s priorities really lie. As well as pushing for an unjust cuts agenda, they have demonstrated they cannot even do this successfully, blundering and posturing their way through unplanned proposals.

Finally, the occupation has expanded and galvanised the anti-cuts movement at RHUL beyond what we had previously hoped. This will help immensely in the continuing campaign against the unnecessary cuts at Royal Holloway.

What we're doing now and what we want



This occupation has proved many points. First and foremost, it has proved that the anti-cuts movement is more than a group of students sat in a corridor. Over the last 8 days, the movement has garnered messages of support from hundreds of lecturers and students; locally, nationally and internationally, with support from the American Student Association and numerous other universities and groups. This obviously puts management in a difficult position, and as such this has had management pressurise occupiers through despicable tactics of intimidation, refusal to negotiate and even threatening an injunction against all protest on campus.

Closer work between the UCU and the Students’ Union, as well as the Students’ Union’s recent motion of no confidence in David Willets, have convinced us that we have left to do greater things. This will certainly include peaceful, direct action as supported by the Students’ Union’s motion, in addition to taking part in what management have assured us will be a large number of constructive meetings.

Occupy RHUL calls on other organisations to use the break afforded to us by the holiday season to organise and prepare for a renewed campaign in the new year. We will be planning a series of actions starting early on our return to the college, and continuing frequently and often to disrupt the unjustified actions of the Senior Management Team.

Our final demands upon leaving of senior management is that there to be absolutely no victimisation of peaceful protesters, as previously agreed with the SMT and especially not to pass costs on to activists or the Students’ Union.

The occupation’s ending is not the end of our efforts, but is simply the resurgence of a strong ongoing movement by the anti-cuts community as we resume an encroaching campaign against the unnecessary cuts to vulnerable courses led by the Senior Management Team.

Press Release: Occupation ends as management threaten High Court action


Press Release
For immediate release: Thursday 8th December 2011

Royal Holloway occupation ends as management threaten High Court action

Today at 1220 hours GMT, the student sit-in going under the name ‘OccupyRHUL’ left the senior management corridor of Royal Holloway, University of London (RHUL) after 8 days of occupation.  The senior management team (SMT) threatened High Court action to get a possession order and injunction against the protest.

The group left citing a breakdown in negotiations, saying they felt they had been forced out by SMT’s decision to take legal action rather than enter into meaningful negotiations over the occupiers’ concerns and demands.  The demands of the occupiers included halting cuts to courses and departments, condemning the HE white paper, and halting the entrance of for-profit providers into the university.  Occupiers also demanded that Royal Holloway Principal, Professor Layzell, withdraw Section 188 notices and redundancy threats.

There has been widespread support for the sit-in amongst the academic community and staff at Royal Holloway and beyond.  The occupation has exposed widespread discontent with the senior management team at RHUL and their priorities for the future of the university.

“The Principal has said he’s had hours and hours of discussion with us; in actual fact it was only two hours.  He failed to engage the issues, instead just stating where we agree and disagree.  The support we’ve received from lecturers has been immense.”

Another student said, “There is no justification for the redundancy threats.  There has been no economic or business case put forward and there has been no market research into the restructuring.”

“The HE white paper poses serious threats to the university sector.  In these uncertain times university Principals and Vice-Chancellors all over the country are vacillating, yet Paul Layzell seems keen to be a poster boy and flag-bearer for the white paper.”

The occupiers say this is the beginning, and not the end, of a campaign around the issues of course cuts, redundancies and the white paper.  They say they will be utilising the galvanised support of students and lecturers in future actions.

Ends

Notes for Editors
. Over 100 students and staff have taken part in the occupation over the course of the week
. Further information can be found at occupyrhul.blogspot.com
. Pictures and interviewees available
. Royal Holloway, University of London, has announced tuition fees of £9,000
Contact
Name: Craig Gent Tel: 07824 331240
OccupyRHUL
Royal Holloway, University of London
http://occupyrhul.blogspot.com

Wednesday 7 December 2011

Important Public Meeting @ 7pm

An important public GM is planned to start at 7pm tonight at the occupation, it is really vital that we have a good turn out so please come a long even if you've not been to the occupation yet. We have been issued with legal papers from the Senior Management Team and a lot of issues need to be discussed. Come along and bring friends! See you at 7!

Tuesday 6 December 2011

Clarification of "£150,000 of student funding withheld...for a room?"

We would like to clarify that Ms Coleman's initial statement was, to paraphrase, "if the meeting does not take place in that meeting room, then it would not take place." We sought clarification by asking whether it could be rescheduled or relocated, to which she replied no. She clarified "If the meeting does not go ahead today then we will not allocate the funds." Ms Coleman has confirmed that these were indeed her words, and it was based on the understanding that without the room the annual fund would not be allocated, and the implicit blackmail, that we allowed this meeting sole use of the room, our silent study space.

Ms Coleman has since attempted to clarify her words to us, at approximately 16:25 and states that she intended to mean that the funds could not be allocated today, not that they would not be allocated this year. The latter is what we understood from her earlier statement, given that we were told that a rescheduling of the meeting would not take place.

£150,000 of student funding withheld...for a room?

£150,000 of student funding withheld… for a room?

The occupation had previously said to management that the ‘Principal’s Meeting Room’ was available for use if booked in advance. It should be noted that this agreement was made before the management decided that in place of negotiating and debating with students over the future of the college it was simply easier to seek legal action to evict us from our own campus.

This morning, we were forwarded an email from the Students Union’ (as management have refused to even email us anymore). This email informed us that management require the use of the room for a discussion of Royal Holloway Alumni, the AAG, to discuss the Annual Fund and its allocation. This was ostensibly because they were unable to use the previously booked room in Huntersdale, but comes at a convenient time when management are looking to disregard our arguments by tarnishing our conduct.

We replied that they would be able to use the meeting room, but that students would be in the room studying whilst the meeting took place. This is due to a lack of study space on campus, our need to secure the occupation, and that there are numerous other meeting rooms available on campus for them to move to.

Management entered the occupation approximately two hours before the meeting was scheduled to start, and refused to negotiate with us. They have demanded to use the room, and stated that if anyone remained in the room, then the meeting would not be relocated or rescheduled, but instead, management said that the annual fund would simply not be allocated. We obviously will grant the meetings full access to the room, with no students inside, given management’s outrageous demand.

We vehemently condemn their decision to make an ultimatum, which could impact so many students significantly, over so petty an issue as which particular room they hold a meeting in. In the 09-10 academic year, the Annual Fund allocated £150,000 in bursaries, scholarships, and other student support. That management were prepared to forsake the allocation of these vital funds is disgraceful, and reveals their real priorities: that they would rather win a trivial victory over the use of a room, than facilitate aiding students who wish to study at this university, supposedly their core objective.

Occupy RHUL

Good Morning!

Hello Everyone!

Just to let you know that you are more than welcome to pass by the management corridor at any point to ask us questions or get updates. We really are very friendly people!

We are having a General Assembly at 12 today, so please come by and voice your opinion on the matters raised.

We've also got a board up with all of the responses and statements from one party to the other, so you can understand the process and sequence. We're more than happy to explain anything, or listen to your opinion.

Looking forward to seeing you all!

Monday 5 December 2011

Response to Principal's request to leave

We believe that the principal’s decision that now “is a sensible time to conclude
the occupation” is untrue. Management have been uncooperative and stubborn
in both meetings and formal discourse (please see the Principal’s response this
morning on  www.rhubarbtv.com/occupy). This is a real disappointment to the
Royal Holloway community, as we are all united by our desire to provide
excellent services and provoking thought to further ourselves as individuals.
Furthermore it is important to state that the decision to conclude is thoroughly in
the hands of the occupiers. We have collectively decided not to respond to
threats of legal action but to leave only when a suitable dialogue has been
achieved, bearing in mind that the occupation occurred as a result of a deficit in
meaningful discussion.
As previously stated, the claims of costs and student occupation numbers were
addressed in our Analysis of the Principal’s Response. This document is
available online at http://occupyrhul.blogspot.com/
If we don’t leave when asked by management, then the occupiers become
trespassers. We are not concerned by this development. Trespass is a civil, and
not criminal matter. Management would have to seek a court injunction to prove
they own the building, and this takes time.
Security can only remove us during trespass in order to prevent harm to others,
or intentional damage to property. Firstly, this is not occupation-specific, but their
right on all of campus (e.g. if there’s a fight after a club night). Also, we have a
well organised welfare team, a no drugs/drink policy, and are careful not to
damage anything.  They have no reasonable grounds to suspect harm to
others or to property.
In regards to the criminal case of aggravated trespass,  we are not interfering
with the lawful business in this corridor. We are allowing open access to
everyone to enter, leave, and to go about their lawful business. It is
management’s choice to reschedule or cancel meetings, we are happy for them
to continue here, as members of the UCU have also stated. Having sleeping
bags, banners, or music inside the corridor does not stop people from working, or
aim to do so – we want them to engage with us, and to carry on working if they
want to by allowing them access. We are friendly and open.
If an injunction does arrive, and we ignore it, we face criminal charges of
‘aggravated trespass’, and we could be escorted off the premises by bailiffs.
However, we have been clear that even in the event of an eviction, we demand
no victimisation of students. We already have pledges from the management not
to victimize us, the full support of the Students’ Union, many members of staff,
the UCU, and the wider local community, including trade unionists in Surrey
County Council.
We hope you will therefore withdraw your denial of our right to be here.

Monday 5th December: Update

Monday mornings are hardly ever welcome, but this one was a little different. After a long night preparing the response to Paul Layzell's Statement (see below), we were met with some electricity.

We had refused to meet at this time with management in order to get more student involvement and to formulate well-considered arguments; they came anyway. They disrupted our general meeting (which they would have been welcome to take part in) and argued that we were preventing them from working, despite having full access to their offices. Check rhubarbtv.com for a link soon to be uploaded for Layzell's argument this morning.

We would just like to note that they are still able to access their offices, and that if they require the meeting room then they can book it in advance, just like everyone else at the occupation. They also interrupted us, and refused to engage with us. Generally indicative of their attitude towards us.

Later in the day we were each handed a letter by Paul Layzell declaring that from 7.30pm tonight, we are no longer welcome, making the occupation a trespass. Exciting stuff. Given that our demands have not been met, and management have refused to seriously listen to our counter-arguments, we intend to stay. We will keep you updated! Legal information to follow.

Response to Paul Layzell's Statement Sunday 4th December

On Wednesday 30th November 2011, the management corridor of Royal Holloway was occupied. (For more information see here: www.occupyrhul.blogspot.com). We had previously released ‘The Principal’s Pledge’, a pledge not to make any cuts and to oppose privatisation and fees. In response, the management had two meetings with us to further discuss our demands, and ultimately released a statement, which we assess below.

Management have claimed that this occupation is costing them £3000, in terms of additional security and cleaning costs. A complete breakdown of those figures would be appreciated. We have not asked for the security presence and feel it is not necessary to ensure the safety of this occupation. Cleaning is surely done daily anyway, so we fail to see how our presence has incurred additional costs. To put the costs quoted in perspective, this figure is 1.25% of Paul Layzell’s annual salary. Management also claim that we have -disrupted their activities, but we have maintained that they are welcome to use their offices as usual and they have chosen instead to work elsewhere of their own volition.


The claim from management that there was at one point only four people in the occupation is a factual error. Whilst at some points our numbers have fallen as low as fifteen as people left to cook, attend lectures and shower, at peak times we have counted in excess of 70 students. This does not count the numerous students and staff who have come to visit briefly, often bearing food and money in support; augmented by the huge amount of online backing received through e-mails, Facebook responses and over two thousand hits on our blog. This is indicative of the overall sympathy towards our aims, from those who may not be able to physically join the occupation for a variety of reasons.
Management claim that the occupation is not representative of the student body.

However, the Students’ Union; democratic voice of all 9000 students of Royal Holloway, has debated, voted on, and then passed a motion, supporting occupations - and other forms of direct action, both current and in the future. To say this occupation is unrepresentative of the student body’s beliefs is to say that its own Union is unrepresentative. There is undoubtedly an irony in this claim when the decision making body of this university is comprised of just 24 people (only two of whom are students, and four of whom are academics), which makes long-term strategic decisions about the future of the university.

Management have attempted to compare the costs incurred by this occupation to the legal costs they chose to pay in order to evict the Bedford Square occupiers. We feel that this is not directly related to the current occupation, and does not merit further response.


We see the commitment that management have made to ‘new thinking, debate and challenge’ as highly ironic, considering that it has taken an occupation to truly open discussion with management. Previous attempts to request meetings with management to discuss these issues have typically been refused, and indeed the Principal was given the pledge two weeks ago, and only responded after the occupation began. With these things in mind, we fully condemn the implied threat of legal action from Senior Management.

We are prepared to stay in the occupation until our demands are met. If senior management feels they have to take action such as taking out a court injunction in order to evict us, then the eviction will happen. However, continued harassment of students only serves to galvanize the anti-cuts movement.

Given that management identify the need ‘to demonstrate the consequences of current policy’, we question the speed through which their cuts proposals have been rushed through the College Council (the highest governing body of Royal Holloway, containing only two students and four staff). The University and College Union has called the consultation period “farcical” considering the lack of proper dialogue and time given to consider all options. Meanwhile, alternative proposals have been either ignored, denied the opportunity to be presented, or have not been engaged with on a meaningful level.

Many universities will suffer as a result of the White Paper and we believe co-ordinated condemnation would contribute to its defeat. We have called on the management of Royal Holloway to lead a wave of universities calling for withdrawal of the White Paper. As we have stated before, even universities, which may in some way benefit from small aspects of the White Paper have opposed the proposals, on the grounds that it has further reaching consequences on the future of education. Universities are more than businesses that have to balance their books but institutions that should be run in the public interest with fair access to all. On that basis the White Paper’s exclusion of many students from non-traditional backgrounds, the cuts to funding and the opportunities for privatisation are more than enough grounds for its condemnation. This is despite breadcrumbs of progress within the White Paper, such as proposals for part time students or short-term considerations of finance. We agree that there are aspects of the White Paper that are positive, but we do not believe that a small positive should be allowed to outweigh a major negative.

We welcome the university’s commitment to bursaries, and request more information as to the formation of these proposals. We do not wish students to be pressured, or have to choose between courses, because bursaries might be discouraged, limited in number, or affect acceptance of offers, in preference to fee waivers.


AAB+ students. Royal Holloway is also in the top quartile of universities in terms of surplus as a share of total income. Therefore, ‘squeezed’ may not be entirely accurate. We believe that the management’s commitment to “improving Royal Holloway” is covert complicity in the government’s reform of higher education. We have the ability to challenge and change the government’s plans. There are fifty other universities in the same situation as us who could be reasonably be expected to campaign with us, and therefore any attempts at ‘damage limitation’ are not out of necessity of circumstance as college insist, but either a cynicism over our ability to win our demands or a passive support for the government.


We agree that the AAB cap will prove problematic but the management have not released research or statistics regarding the AAB cap, and so the pace of their cuts is again premature.


Because the policy allows universities to take as many AAB students as they wish, it will have a detrimental effect on many universities including Royal Holloway, therefore we are calling for an end to this policy and requesting the public support of management in doing this. We strongly believe that reductions in funding and student numbers can be fought effectively if the management of universities are willing to do this.


We believe that the problem with the concept of ‘student demand’ is that it takes a ‘snapshot’ of the university as present, and doesn’t contextualise the changing nature of course intake. Some years there are more students, some years there are fewer. Instead of recognising this cyclical progression, the management’s plans are that as soon as a department fails to reach a target (defined not by academics and students but by management), it will be cut severely – which serves to further worsen student demand. Many of the previously appealing aspects of a course (specialist modules, acclaimed academics and so on) will be lost. We believe this will create a downward spiral and eventually a slow death to these departments, despite management’s insistence that these discipline areas will remain intact. We consider this to be the inevitable result of the marketisation and commodification of education.

We feel strongly that reducing numbers of staff and issuing threats of redundancy will not strengthen the position of Royal Holloway and will instead lead to the loss of valuable lecturers such as Edith Hall, as well as decrease interest in working at Royal Holloway from other high-profile lecturers. We are also asking not that this guarantee come from management to students or the student union but to the public as a whole.

During the occupation we have also had concerns raised from students who have lost seminar time between last year and this year, or who have been forced into ‘study groups’, which are perceived by many students to be ineffective.

We are glad that we can agree with management over the importance of access to higher education for students from lower income families but feel that offering a choice of fee waivers or bursaries doesn’t go far enough when all students leaving university, bar those from very wealthy families, will be starting their careers in prohibitive amounts of debt. We also require a guarantee that there will be no pressure on students to choose between fee waivers and bursaries, and that the choice between the two should not affect academic offers made to students.

We are also in agreement with management over the importance of expanding rather than cutting access to library, student resources or learning support. We do however seek clarification about proposals to put student support services into the library, and the impact this might have on vulnerable students not wishing to be seen accessing support resources. This would clearly also have effects on the library as a service, as its planned expansion should be used for study space and materials. This however needs clarification, as previously stated.


Given the claims from management of uncertainty about future funding, surely the most important thing Royal Holloway can do is guarantee access schemes for people from non-traditional backgrounds, (for example lower socioeconomic backgrounds, BME communities, and students with parents not educated to degree level) as they are most likely to continue study at Royal Holloway. Furthermore, given that students from non-traditional backgrounds are those most likely to be disproportionately affected by the cuts, we believe that continuing these schemes is incredibly important.

We consider that Paul Layzell and other members of senior management are actually major players in the White Paper, by permitting private institutions to offer degrees under the name of Royal Holloway. For-profit providers by their nature will always prioritise profit over the education and welfare of students, and the pay and conditions of staff. Privatisation would allow these providers to take over parts of courses, service provision, or even whole universities, and money from these things would be not reinvested, but given in profit to their bosses and shareholders. No wonder the senior principal of the Parthenon Group, a major consultancy to for-profit providers, recently described the UK higher education system as a potential 'treasure island' for for-profits.

The model of education that the management team appear to be moving towards has revealed huge flaws when implemented in the US, and indeed isn’t always profitable; for example the BPP University College, which is owned by the US for-profit education company Apollo, has had a quarter of its value written off after poorer than expected performance. Private companies that fail in universities may saddle colleges or universities with liabilities that would be paid for with staff jobs.

We are aware that Royal Holloway currently has relationships with private providers, but feel that the White Paper exacerbates the issue of the comparatively limited private provision of services and property ownership in universities to an unparallelled expansion of the private sector into the public education sector.

Royal Holloway is currently negotiating privatisation agreements with three different private companies, including the textbook publishers Pearsons. (First of all, has proper research into the impact this will have on the college been created, and if so, why has it not been published?) We take inspiration from the successful campaigns against privatisation, which are happening already. At Oxford Brookes, Essex, Reading, and Goldsmiths, proposals for joint INTO university partnerships was defeated, and at Manchester Metropolitan, a partnership with the Australian company Navitas was defeated. Similar defeats have happened at many other universities.

In a UCU survey, 81% of the professors questioned said they believed an expansion of for-profit providers would lead to a decline in the UK's global reputation, and 79% warned that qualifications offered by for-profits would be viewed as inferior by employers. We believe that Royal Holloway will only lose reputation if it offers degrees funded by for-profit providers, and indeed numerous complaints have been made against Study Group, who are currently offering an on campus foundation program for international students. We would much rather that management do not follow through their privatisation agreements, but we are prepared to campaign against it.


We are aware that there is a nominations and honorary awards committee for positions on College Council, but considering that there may be no more college non-lay members than lay members there is technically the option for adding another six non-lay members. As a result we demand three more student spaces on College Council. We understand that quorum is only met with a majority of lay members, but also find it irresponsibly negligent based on the College’s power that people should accept a place on college council and yet not be able to attend a meeting every three months.

We also fully support attempts for more (academic and support) staff representation on college council, and suggest that the senior management team start negotiations with the relevant unions on this matter in favour of such a proposal.

We also propose that before College Council meets, the non-lay members (including the Principal) should organise a cross-campus meeting open to all students, staff and academics to discuss the agenda of the council so that non-lay members can gauge the opinions of the university beforehand.

Point nine is demanding the circulation of the pledge once management have agreed to it, rather than the circulation of the current response.


Staff redundancy notices are in the process of being prepared. Under section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA), the obligation to consult collectively arises when an employer proposes to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less, and notices under section 188 have been received, and the issue of redundancies have been circulated to staff. The fact that no physical copies of redundancy notices have been issues yet does not mean they will not be introduced in the future. We question why the change from long-term to short-term contracts for language staff, and the option of voluntary redundancies, has occurred at a time when management have been discussing the prospect of compulsory redundancy; it is clearly causal. As we have referenced above, the proposals for cuts to departments will ultimately lead to the closure of whole discipline areas.

At Sussex University during Professor Layzell’s previous employment, he was responsible for 200 job cuts, and oversaw the violent eviction of an occupation. Simon Higman was responsible for 220 job cuts at Southampton University. Upon arriving at Royal Holloway, cuts were implemented in 2010 to English seminars, the music library, and the language courses that students of non-MFL courses could attend - nearly six months before the tuition fees vote in December 2010, and nearly a year before the White Paper was introduced. This combination of factors strongly indicates that rather than the cuts being a necessary response to the White Paper, it is instead being used as a smokescreen to justify cuts that were already happening.

The best way to create a surplus which can be used for reinvestment into student services is by guaranteeing that lecturers can provide specialist courses which attract a wide range of students, and that the research they do is well-funded and internationally acclaimed. It is this approach of the past that has led to both Royal Holloway’s acclaimed reputation (88th in the world in 2010), and a surplus of £6 million in the same year. Cuts to departments would deter students from applying to Royal Holloway because of the lack of course options and the decrease in Holloway’s research and teaching reputation, leading to a decrease in surplus and student applications, which would exponentially compound these problems.

As we have addressed above, the trouble with management’s proposals is that they do not contextualise the performance of departments. For example, the drop in applications to Classics over the last two years is part of the natural ebb and flow of student numbers in departments. Student numbers rise and fall naturally. Indeed, this is demonstrated by the rise in applications this year to Classics courses. Additionally, lecturers’ output of research similarly rises and falls. Several Classics lecturers have many pieces of research due for publication soon. This was not factored into the RAE performance scores. We are also concerned about the cuts to the Computer Science department, which can surely not be justified on an economic basis, considering this department is running a surplus. This more broadly links into the White Paper’s reduction of cross-subsidy which would address the natural changes in departmental surplus and deficit. However, the reduction of cross-subsidy by the White Paper does not mean that the management are unable to help departments in a period of ‘downturn’. Paul Layzell personally said that the management has “always allowed a certain degree of deficit”. The decision to cut departments rather than help them is not one of necessity but of choice. If management, however, believe that some departments’ losses are not part of the usual swing of academic and financial performance, they have not provided any evidence for this assertion.

To summarise the content of the Principal’s response, there are clearly many options in place of cuts, job losses and privatisation that management have either failed to consider or will not listen to. We hope that our in depth analysis and offer of alternatives will be met with a commitment to the Principal’s Pledge.

Regards
OccupyRHUL


If you would like a PDF copy of this statement including the relevant info from management's press statement, please email occupyrhul@gmail.com

Sunday 4 December 2011

Father Vlad speaks at Occupy RHUL

Tonight at ten o'clock Father Vlad visited our humble abode for the second time today. On his first visit he brought us mince pies which we thank him for. We were saddened to receive the news that he will be leaving Royal Holloway in Easter. He joked that he was being sent into exile for supporting revolutionary students but the real reason for leaving is that he wants a new project and we wish him well.
On this vist he talked to us about his time as a political prisoner and how he came to be here at Royal Holloway. It was an inspiring tale and reminded us all what a ledgend we have supporting the anti-cuts movement.
Father Vlad also discussed a book is called Purge by Nickie Fourreau available from Amazon Kindle about people who want to exterminate homosexuality and three women who stop this happening.

We would like to thank him again for giving up his time so generously to inspire and invigorate the occupiers.


Occupy RHUL

Thanks to Simon Higman

We would like to thank Simon Higman (College registrar) and his wife for their offering of mince pies, chocolate biscuits and brandy butter this evening.

Very important meeting 3pm

We are having an important meeting at 3pm today in which we'll discuss the latest response from senior management. We hope as many people as possible can make it as this will be when look at how we can move forwards.

In other news, tonight we have Father Vlad speaking about his time as a political prisoner. We have more speakers lined up for the week including Stephanie Carver from the PIR dept and a speaker from Occupy London Stock Exchange (OLSX).

Occupy RHUL

General Meeting 3pm

We have received a new reply to the pledge from Management. This needs discussing.

What we did - Saturday 3rd December

Good evening.
Father Vlad came down today with mince pies, which were filled with lovely festive cheer (and mincemeat).
At 6pm we held another general meeting (GM), open to all, in which we discussed future plans and the general maintenance of the Principal's beautiful corridor.
After the meeting we had a beauteous home-cooked ratatouille with couscous. We will be having communal meals, which accommodate for all dietary requirements, every night so feel free to join us. 
This evening Graham Smith from Royal Holloway's UCU branch came to speak about the anti-Poll Tax movement from '88 to '92 and gave some advice on peaceful protest.
Kit Leary from Save Our Services in Surrey (SOSIS) talked about the trade union movement in general, and about unions that accept students under their wing. There are unions for every job.
The open mic night was a success, and is still going on now with music from all manner of instruments including trumpets, guitars and pianos.

Come and join us for our next GM tomorrow (more info will be on the facebook page) and for Father Vlad's talk at 8pm. We hope you can join us.

Occupy RHUL

Friday 2 December 2011

10 Reasons to visit OccupyRHUL!

1) Free access
You can visit Occupy but you don't have to become part of the occupation! Under our occupation demands we have free access to the corridors we are occupying - this means people can come and go as they like and there is no chance of either being locked in the occupation or not being able to get back in if you leave and come back. 

2) Free Study Space
 We have occupied the Principal's Meeting Room, which is a luxury boardroom - the entire corridor has WIFI access and there are a large number of seats in the room - we keep this silent so people can get on with their work. Why go to Bedford Library and struggle to get a space when you can use Principal Layzell's own private meeting room!


3) Make a difference
We aren't here for the hell of it, we're here to make a difference. If you support the cause then occupation is the highest form of protest for a student (as obviously we can't strike as that's slightly detrimental for ourselves). 


4) Intellectual Debate
Whether you support the cause, are against it or perhaps you're unsure - we are willing to have discussions with all. We are forever sitting and discussing the reasons we're here and wider politics or intellectual discussions. We often have speakers, so far we've heard from Royal Holloway lecturers, a GMB representative and writer Symon Hill. 


5) Live Music, drama & entertainment.
We have a piano, a lot of guitars and have even had a trumpet! Especially later in the evening - Management Corridor is definitely the place to be for live music - we also have drama planned and spoken word. We aren't here to be bored - we're here to be productive! We have an open mic night on Saturday 3rd December!


6) You can actually meet the Principal!
Paul Layzell (he's the Principal of Royal Holloway - you probably didn't know this) has met with us on several occasions to discuss our demands - it's interesting to hear his views on why he's making our lecturers redundant and cutting our courses - all our meetings with him are advertised and open. 


7) Find out why these people are cutting our courses despite making a sizeable profit
Royal Holloway makes a surplus of £6.5 million every year - yet management still insist on cutting courses, staff and resources despite the Senior Management budget being 104% of our Library budget.. if you want to hear the reasons for this then come along - as it's what we plan on finding out and are holding regular meetings with management to achieve this aim.


8) It's great if you're nosy and want to see where Royal Holloway Senior Management work!
We have occupied the entire management corridor - the Principal's Hallway, his kitchen, his meeting room etc. If you want to be nosy, come have a look and see what's going on! 


9) Be part of something...
The atmosphere and relationships here at OccupyRHUL are really strong, there is no hierarchy and every decision made is voted upon before action is taken, we work in groups to ensure everything is prepared for when we meet with management, we have entertainment teams who plan things such as our Open Mic Night, we have out reach teams, media teams - collective action is the way forward. 


10) Food...
Whilst we aren't gonna let you walk into Occupy and take our food - if you're here for a while you may very well be offered drinks & food! We look after the people who are staying with us. 


So why don't you come and join us for a bit? We're in Founders East on the ground floor - come through the disabled entrance and turn left or go through main entrance, turn left and go through the corridors.

Meeting with Paul Layzell

At 13:00 we held a meeting with Paul Layzelll, we will be formulating a response to this meeting later on during our General Meeting at 6pm.

An enjoyable evening at Occupy RHUL

Thursday evening was quite an enjoyable one here at OccupyRHUL. Between 6 and 7 we had lectures join us and talks on the centralisation and power of finance and 1960's counter culture - interesting for all. The Great Money trick was performed by one of the occupiers - an interesting demonstration on how economic exploitation works (we'll probably have this again tonight!!) taken from Robert Tressell's Ragged trousered philanthropists.

Later in the evening we held a General Meeting where it was decided to uncover our security cameras and also discussed was the time of the meeting to be held on Friday. We also had lots of live music, pianos trumpets guitars etc - join us this evening for more of this!

Thursday 1 December 2011

Whimsical Prose From Inside The Occupation.

"Inside the occupation, infinity goes up on trial,
Voices echo 'This is what salvation must be like after a while.'"

- Carl bastardises Bob Dylan.

General Meeting: 9:30PM

There will be a General Meeting at 9:30PM to discuss meeting with college management tomorrow, Friday 2nd December.

Please attend!

The events happening at the occupation today


Come along to any of the events, they are free, friendly and accessible to all. Refreshments will be provided including tea, coffee and biscuits. See you later!

Day 2 - Good Morning!


Hello from OccupyRHUL!

 It is now Day 2 of the Royal Holloway students’ occupation of the Senior Management Corridor. All are in good spirits and are feeling happy (albeit a little bit tired; but it is a student movement) we have had a number of both students and academic staff who have visited the occupation this morning, agreeing with our motives and have agreed to come and speak later in the day. There is food, water and most vitally; coffee. 

            We have acquisitioned the Principal’s Board Room, which is very, very nice. It is now our quiet study area and all students who cannot find a seat in the library are invited to come and apply themselves to reading in here. Currently, members of the occupation are drawing up the educational schedule for the day; along with the plans for entertainment this evening- with promise of spoken word performances and jam sessions. 

            There is also the intention of setting up a stall outside of the Windsor Building in order to garner further support amongst students and staff, and the flyers and leaflets are ready to be distributed.
There is a General Meeting at 1pm, and all are welcome to attend. 

It is safe to assume that today could be a long one for the Senior Management Team.