AC Grayling – the executioner
It was, of course, inevitable. For years now, UK governments have massively underfunded higher education. We sit in the bottom quarter of OECD countries for public funding for universities. But the launch today of the private ‘New College of Humanities’ in London is still shocking. The £18,000 a year fees are still horrifying. We knew this was precisely what the Tories were hoping would happen, that this was the inevitable end of the road down which Labour sent us. But it is still surprising how quickly we have arrived.
That, and the involvement of many public academics that many on the left respect. AC Grayling, Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, Ronald Dworkin – names that many have found to be still small voices of calm in the midst of Daily Mail and Fox News insanity. In his email today to Sean Rillo Raczka the Chair of the Birkbeck student union, Grayling effectively tells us in his defence of the college that it is a sad necessity. He explains that it is the final remaining way to defend the humanities from the barbaric cuts imposed by this government. He wants more public funding, he says, but it simply isn’t there.
Well, in his countless articles for The Guardian over the years, I can’t find any in which he argues for more university funding. I don’t remember him joining the UCU and student protests against these cuts. I don’t remember this leading public intellectual leading a debate demanding proper public funding for intellectualism. Many academics fought tooth and nail – risked their careers and their livelihoods to defend our universities. Where were you, Professor Grayling?
Grayling talks in his email of hard facts. It is because of these hard facts that many of us have been fighting for university funding for years now. And so today’s rollcall of collaborators serve as a reminder of the failure of passive liberalism – of what happens when leading thinkers simply accept the cards laid out by the government. We have always known that ‘the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it’*. But today, Britain’s leading public philosopher has done worse than only interpret. He has accepted the role of executioner.
And let’s be clear: this is what Anthony Grayling has done. Labour and the Tories may have issued the decree – they may have so run down funding for our universities that it became inevitable that some private institutions would be established. In fact, 2 were already – one under Labour: Buckingham; one under Cameron: BPP University. But these were not serious institutions in the public mind. They did not lend weight to the credibility of privatisation. They were snuck through the back door, with few knowing of their existence. They posed little serious challenge to our public universities.
No, it took major figures to do that, and that is why the list of names announced today as professors of this New College are not so much the leading academics of our age, but the most famous. They are not necessarily the best teachers or the best researchers. They are the best known names, the most media savvy. And so while Buckingham and BPP were obnoxious, they were quiet. What AC Grayling has launched today is not so much a college, as a public assault on public education. That, and a challenge to Oxford, Cambridge, and others to follow his lead. As he says in his email:
“Those of us who have set up the New College are … bringing to bear the US model”
We always knew that this was the end of the road down which Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have been leading us. But we had time. There was still fight in us yet. This did not have to happen now, and if not now, then possibly never. Grayling, Dawkins and the other collaborators have today taken us a lot further down that road. They have made our fight all the harder. They must have that on their consciences. But it is still a fight we can win.
* With notable exceptions – Bertrand Russell was president of CND, and then founded a more direct action focussed peace group, with whom he was often arrested. Jeremy Bentham founded UCL so all could afford to learn. Some philosophers have done their best to change the world.
THINGS YOU CAN DO NOW – Join a new Facebook group to oppose the New College, ring them on 0800 955 0212 to complain, or just to clog up their lines, or you can email Peter Singer – perhaps the most likely to go back on his agreement to teach at this institution – here: psinger@princeton.edu. I’m sure there will be protests etc soon, we’ll try to keep you in touch. UPDATE – there is a meeting at SOAS tomorrow at 5:30 to organise campaigning against this.
UPDATE: we’ve set up an e-action so you can email Richard Dawkins and ask him not to take part. Please do.
Hey, thanks for the blog article.Thanks Again. Great.
Skeptikat – you don’t see an argument against the college because that’s not what this piece is about. It starts from the premise that public education is a good thing. If you want to read something making a killer argument against privitisation of education, I recommend ‘Hard Times’.
@Liz K
“my pagan senses always told me Grayling was a nut!”
I see muddled arguments and ad hominems galore on this page but that comment is the one that broke my irony meter.
I’m still looking for the killer argument against Grayling’s justification but I haven’t found it here. How will anything be better if he doesn’t do this?
Interesting critique in the Telegraph – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/indialenon/100090894/three-reasons-why-the-new-college-of-the-humanities-will-fail/ – suggesting good students just won’t go there
Oh no! Dawkins as well?! (But my pagan senses always told me Grayling was a nut!) Why isn’t this all over the radio & TV channels, seeing as all these celebrity academics are involved?! Trahison des clercs, I should say so!
I suspect that what Grayling et al are introducing is not even the US model – it’s actually worse than that. The New College is apparently offering funding for 20% of its students. As I understand it, US universities generally offer more funding than that. The best data I’ve found is from this report by a professor of Education at Penn State:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/deh29/papers/ASHE_2010_Heller_Callender.pdf
The table on p15 shows that in 2007-2008, 44% of first year U.S. students received an institutional grant (i.e. a grant provided by their university), which on average covered 61% of their tuition fees. For private non-doctorate universities, 78% of first-year students got grants which covered on average 46% of their fees. 78% is a lot more than one fifth. Of course, even if Grayling et al *were* introducing the US model that would be worth opposing, but it looks like they’re not – they’re introducing US levels of fees, without US levels of financial support.
I’m really shocked by this, especially with so may academics that I used to have huge respect for. Is there a mass email list so we could email them all to let them know what we think. Nikki
Thaks Ali – I’ve updated the article.
As well as the group there’s a meeting happening at SOAS tomorrow, which some of you might want to attend: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=221660597851874
One of their proud boasts is actually that they will not be using PhD students as teachers. A pity, in my opinion: when I was an undergrad, some of the PhD tutors were very good indeed at explaining things.
In any case, the college is a disgusting idea. Let’s hope it flops.
The fact that Grayling thinks this is the only way to protect the Humanities shows exactly how removed from reality he is. The professors leading the New College of Humanities could fund amazing projects to democratise knowledge – scholarships, community education, university outreach – just by donating the fees from a few lucrative speaking engagements every year. If they were really serious about it, they could even donate some of their time to teach in these schemes as well. But they won’t, because the whole thing is a vanity project, designed to put a monetary value on what a few academics think their time is worth.
Of course, if this works in anything like “research-led teaching” in the Sciences, where students are lured in with the promise that they’ll be taught be some of the world leaders in their field, then those few who can find £18k a year (plus London living expenses) will be sadly disappointed. The truth is that people who are world leaders in their field rarely have any interest in teaching undergraduates. What they’ll get is one or two guest lectures with a celebrity intellectual, then the real work of teaching them will be done by postdocs and PhD students.