It is 2pm at Senate House. I am at the Defend Education Discussion, a forum for academic protests against the rise in tuition fees, following on from the Silent Protest on Kings Parade yesterday.

The atmosphere is formal: Regent House is almost entirely full; the majority of seats are taken by fellows. The vice chancellor, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz sits at the front of the room. All those participating in the discussions wear gowns, and those who are elected to speak are only allowed to speak for themselves or on behalf of another individual, not as a representative of a group. The maximum time allotted to each speaker is fifteen minutes. Many of the academics present belong to CACHE (Cambridge Academic Campaign for Higher Education).

2pm

Professor Martin Daunton opens proceedings by reading out a statement from the University Council on the Funding of Higher Education and Student Support. Key principles which the statement declares ‘must’ be upheld include diversity in the admissions process, whereby no suitably qualified UK student would be disadvantaged from applying, and maintaining and developing Access schemes. Other points included ensuring that adequate funding is retained over a full and diverse spectrum of academic subjects, and ensuring that the changes do not alter the proper autonomy of the university.

2.05pm

Professor Peter de Bolla of the English Faculty declares he is speaking for himself, however he brings attention to a petition with the names of 169 academics, all of whom object to the rise in tuition fees. He says he is deeply concerned by government cuts to public services, particularly tuition fees. He highlights the impact that the increase in debt will have on the demographic able to study in Cambridge.

Professor de Bolla states his concern that the University is under pressure to undergo a fundamental reorientation. He suggests that the government cuts show a reconceptualisation of the purpose of university. He advises that the Council ‘marshall resources in order to state publicly the central tenets of the idea of a university’ to counter government implications that universities should become commercial enterprises. He questions how the council plans to adhere to promises of diversity, excellence and autonomy: how is the ‘must’ with which they prefix their statements going to translate into real outcomes?

2.10pm

Dr Lawrence King, a Sociology fellow at Emmanuel College, questions whether the deliberations of the University Council are open to Regents: ‘who is the “we” the University response speaks for?’ King declares that the University has a moral obligation for leadership. He argues that the Browne report was written largely by corporate consultants, including an executive from the McKinsey Global Education Division, which poses a conflict of interests.

In particular, King questions the feasibility of creating a successful ‘educational market’. Comparisons to Harvard are inappropriate he says, as the American fiscal and cultural systems encourage philanthropy on a scale which is unprecedented in the UK.

2.25pm

Dr Brendon Burchell, a fellow at Magdalen, who has worked for a long period of time on Access schemes, highlights his concerns over the impacts that the cuts will have on lower income applicants. Rational financial arguments related to the positive effect of Higher Education on future earnings form ‘part of the picture’, he argues. Many students from poorer backgrounds do not see past the equation: 'debt equals hardship', he adds. One of the most persuasive Access maxims is that Cambridge is no more expensive, and can in fact be cheaper, than other universities. If the proposed changes take place, he suggests, this will no longer be the case.

2.30pm

Owen Holland, a Ph.D student who was part of the Occupation, states that the Regents should reject compromise in favour of the vision of Higher Education for all. He argues that we need to ‘escape the artificial narrative of necessity’, and remember that none of the cuts the government make are inevitable, but rather ideological. In this context, he suggests, neutrality of the University is impossible.

2.40pm

Mr Martin Lucas-Smith questions the source of a comment recorded in Varsity following the Browne Report. The comment was from an ‘anonymous spokesman of the University’, to the effect that Cambridge needs to ‘balance its books’ and so advocates the increase in fees to £9000 per year.

2.45pm

Dr Adam Stewart-Wallace, a philosophy lecturer from St. Johns, satirises the short-term nature of prioritising business-minded education, commenting that former alumni such as Wittgenstein contributed little to the GDP, and that the Abolitionist philosophy of William Wilberforce actually had a harmful effect on the economy at the time.

2.50pm

Reverend Jeremy Caddick is the first speaker to put forward the notion of the privatisation of the University in positive terms. Cambridge, he claims, would be better off away from a penny-pinching government.

2.57pm

Dr Jason Scott-Warren, an English faculty member, speaks disparagingly of the ‘doubtful equation between learning and shopping’. He highlights the proposed cuts in faculty posts: English will lose 8 of 37 positions, and Modern Languages will lose 18 out of 65 positions.

3.05pm

Professor Simon Szreter of St. John’s criticizes the ‘shoddy methodology’ of the Browne report. He cites the example of the 1944 Butler Act, which made secondary education mandatory in the UK, which once seemed like a utopian dream. He highlights the fact that this act was introduced by another Conservative government, in a time of even greater austerity than now. He speaks of an ‘opposed and alternative design’ of free further education for all.

3.15pm

Ben Etherington, speaking on behalf on himself and Dr. Anne Alexander, raises concerns over potential cuts in the research of ‘unprofitable’ subjects. He argues that the cuts to research grants will damage employment security and undermine strategic research, particularly in new and emerging fields.

3.20pm

Dr Priya Gopal, in a statement read by Mr Waseem Yaqoob, a Ph.D. student, argues for progressive income taxation as an alternative to raising tuition fees.

3.33pm

Bruce Beckles, who helped coordinate CACHE for the meeting, criticizes the way in which neither the University Council nor Regent House approved the second submission made by the University in response to the Browne report. He seeks the Vice Chancellor’s promise that proposed fee increases will be brought before Regent House before they are decided.

3.40pm

Professor Simon Jarvis analogises the University’s comment that there are ‘strong arguments’ for retaining public funding, with a man watching his house burn down and commenting that there were ‘strong arguments’ for a fire extinguisher.

3.42pm

Jeremy Prynne voices the opinion that private funding is not a valid alternative, and that some compromise needs to be made between the ‘public good’ which higher education entails, and the ‘personal advantages’ which it brings to the individual, and which the individual should contribute towards.

3.50pm

Dr Boris Groisman argues that science which is geared solely towards industry and business is not conducive to interesting discoveries. Research is already being marginalised, or remarketed in order to appear more industrially appealing and so to gain funding.

4pm

Five Regents remain who have not yet spoken. The Vice Chancellor announces that the meeting will reconvene on 1st February at 2pm.