Major breakthrough for ‘Save Linguistics’

There has been a major advance in the intense ‘Save Linguistics’ Campaign, providing another flash of hope for those desperate to reverse the University’s decision to withdraw the prestigious degree programme.

In another furious and forceful outburst of student activism, campaigners threatened to hand out newsletters and flyers at the University’s Open Day. The flyers would have been used to inform prospective students about the proposed chopping of the highly-rated and over-subscribed Linguistics department and the undemocratic managerial process, evidenced by the guarded manner in which this controversial and myopic decision was made.

The threat clearly dealt the University a short, sharp shock, as Senior Management then contacted the campaigners to learn what their demands were. This marks a U-turn from the University’s original, obstinate position: in an attempt to placate the fury, it has now granted a discussion of the cuts at the senate meeting at the end of this term, and also acquiesced to hold an open meeting between staff and students. It’s a concession which has long been requested by campaigners and, they claim, is the least they deserve.

Leading campaigner and first year Linguistics student Caz Adlington comments on the development in an elated message posted in the ‘Save Linguistics’ Facebook group: “We requested this meeting long ago, and were ignored – but the continued effort, support and loyalty of everybody has finally led to a line of communication being opened. Well done everyone, we are now beginning to really get somewhere!”

However, Tom Wills, President Elect of the USSU, was less cheered by the development: “That management have gone to such lengths to silence dissent shows how scared they are of student power. But in my view the Save Linguistics campaign may have given in to management too easily on this occasion. I do not believe the ‘concessions’ from management reflect any real willingness to enter into meaningful discussion on Linguistics: student reps on Senate could have raised the issue with or without management’s blessing, and an open meeting at the end of the year will just be a platform for management to restate their arguments with very little opportunity for students to take further action if necessary. I would of course be delighted for management to prove me wrong and I hope over the next year they will be open to meaningful negotiation with the incoming team of union officers to avoid a repeat of such confrontation.”

The furtive and sudden decision to axe Linguistics rocked the student body to the core and sparked a furore across campus. An insult to students, university democracy, and the reputation of Sussex as a whole, many students claimed that it showed no respect for the values of education for education’s sake or the University’s repute as a champion of highly-esteemed Arts degrees.

This recent and heartening development in the ongoing and uphill battle to save Linguistics follows another significant incident in the campaign, when, at 4am on Saturday 6 June, a camp set up outside Sussex House by protestors was forcibly disbanded by employees of University Management. 15 bailiffs arrived, issuing a removal notice and forcing the campaigners to abandon their sit-in. Security guards set about dismantling their tents while the activists were ensconced and men barged in wielding cameras, proceeding to take photographs while the inhabitants of the tents were still in a state of undress.

In an intimidating effort to silence the protestors, the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Michael Farthing claimed the defiant students were in breach of university regulations by setting up camp and then defying requests to remove their shelter from the campus. In the face of this peaceful demonstration and exercising of their right to freedom of expression, the students were informed legal action had been taken to forcibly uproot them, and were unjustly threatened with suspension or permanent expulsion if they didn’t comply with Management’s demands. According to the Vice-Chancellor, the harmless manifestation heeded the University’s proper running and ‘good order’ and could taint the ‘good name of the University of Sussex’. He admonished the students for resorting to action rather than channelling their objections through student reps and other modes of feedback.

The campers were extremely disgruntled over Management’s unwillingness to openly communicate with them: “The Vice-Chancellor agreed to see our delegates only one day before the eviction, when legal proceedings were already in progress” said student Jeanne Amery. “This shows that they never had any intention to negotiate”.

Inhabitants of the camp retorted to the warning letters they received from the University by stating: “…we respond that not only are we are not disrupting revision for exams […] we are actually assisting it by using the space in the camp to hold revision sessions. […] If anyone is damaging the reputation of this university, it is the current university management by eliminating some of the most respected departments our university has and by clamping down on their own students’ freedom to protest.”

Cambridge Linguistics Professor Ian Roberts also lent his weight to the cause, in a message on Facebook: “I want to congratulate you guys on your courage and perseverance in standing up to a high-handed and unscrupulous management. More people like you and the world would be a better place, and not just for Linguistics. Well done!”

The decision to cut Linguistics has not yet been ratified and campaigners are adamant that they will continue fighting into the new academic year. They insist that the decision can be overturned at any moment if Senior Management is so inclined.