« | Home | »

‘Don’t worry,’ Cambridge says

Tags: | | |

Cambridge University promises its students ‘a supportive environment’ and ‘specialist assistance should you need it’. ‘Students who are struggling with a particular problem or feeling a bit lost won’t go unnoticed,’ it reassures us. ‘Don’t worry.’ But when the Guardian revealed last week that Cambridgeshire police have attempted to infiltrate student activist groups and record the names and details of protesters, the university declined to comment, saying the case was a matter for the police.

The police officer who invited a Cambridge-based activist for a friendly chat revealed that a key focus would be ‘student-union type stuff’. He also singled out Unite Against Fascism and the tax justice pressure group UK Uncut, as well as the English Defence League. When asked if the police would be interested in Cambridge Defend Education, a group that campaigns against education cuts (I’m a member), the officer said: ‘That’s the sort of thing that we would be looking for.’

You might expect an educational institution to be concerned by solid evidence that the police are gathering information on its law-abiding students. More than 130 academics have called on the vice-chancellor to condemn the police actions. But the university has form when it comes to collaborating in the crackdown on student dissent. Last year, a group of us protested against a visit from the universities and science minister David Willetts. One of our number was hauled before the authorities and ‘rusticated’ (suspended from his degree) for seven terms. After much outcry and an official appeal, this was reduced to one term.

Last month, I stood on a picket line alongside striking lecturers. A private security guard muscled into us, throwing a student to the ground. We still don’t know who hired him; the university won’t comment.

Comments on “‘Don’t worry,’ Cambridge says”

  1. Paul_S says:

    Yes, well, regarding that little protest against Willetts two years ago, here’s another take:


    The Cambridge student (‘extreme’) left, under the banner of CDE, has a rather annoying habit of claiming that they are dealing with a repressive state/university apparatus, and then being appalled and upset when that apparatus represses them for their disruptive activities. And then cries that it’s not fair. Yeah, well, duh.

  2. Harry Stopes says:

    Are you saying that students shouldn’t be surprised when they are oppressed by state and university (arguably correct), or that they are wrong to suppose such oppression exists (clearly wrong, as this article demonstrates)?

  3. Paul_S says:

    No, I’m saying that they can’t try and have it both ways, and then not come across as intensely annoying and childish.

    Of course such oppression exists in the interaction between authority and subordinate groups contesting that authority’s decisions and power. Welcome to politics. That’s what happens when interests collide: power exerts itself. Students of the CDE stripe claim that they are dealing with oppressive institutions, and point to this as a justification for certain kinds of behaviour they undertake which is disruptive and provocative to those institutions. But they then express apparently sincere shock and outrage when they succeed in disrupting and provoking the oppressive institution which then kicks in with its oppression. I find particularly irritating the cry of “it’s not fair! they’re not being nice!” Well, yes. Wasn’t that the original point?

    More generally: you can paint the university as a craven agent of a mad government which intends only evil. That’s good for narratives of self-justifiation and warm feelings of self-righteousness. Alternatively, you can see the university as a complex institution caught in a complex and difficult situation (because yes, in part, the government is kind of mad and it may not intend evil, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc etc). For the university it’s just obviously not true that the demands of CDE should simply be deferred to. And indeed, from whence to CDE get their moral and political authority, their right to dictate? Or is the purity of their conviction all that is required? One might want to be careful here. The track record of purity in politics is an extreme oscillation between farce and horror.

    Better alternatives: accept that the university is not a simple tyrant, and that real politics means not always getting your way, and that more constructive forms of engagement might be found than shouting “tyrant!” in a self-righteous tone when your provocation predictably brings responses.

    Or: go on accusing the university of being simplistically evil, but then stop crying when it does the sorts of things (following provocation) that you’d expect form a simplistically evil organisation. At least the Trots of old had this much sorted. They expected violent repression as part of the necessary cause of revolution, but for the most part didn’t respond with a cry of “it’s not fair, why won’t you just do what we say?”, but rather “fine, we’ll kill you then”. I’m glad the Trots are mostly gone, but at least they were relatively consistent and not so nauseatingly whiney.

  4. Conrad Landin says:

    Paul – saying that the university’s collusion with the authorities in suppressing dissent merits proportionate responses (though this seems to be your argument, not mine) does not mean one cannot also condemn management’s behaviour.

    Many of us have been outraged by the actions of the police and the university in recent years. But I never claimed to have been surprised. Nor did CDE in its collective statement (http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/cambridge-defend-education-statement-on-police-surveillance-revelations), which begins “Cambridge Defend Education is not surprised to find itself the subject of police surveillance.”

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement