On December 3rd, the University of Brighton was closed for the whole day following continuous disagreements between lecturers and university employers. Staff and teachers took strike action to raise awareness and fight back against the 13% decrease of pay that had been occurring since 2009. Picket lines formed, a rally took place and lecturers, along with fellow supporters, marched through the town in hope that their terms regarding their contracts, fair pay and equality issues would be met. Their urges for students and public workers to support the action saw much success as the student’s union and many others joined the protest. However, there were still many students who were confused and annoyed after they were refused entry to the libraries and campus facilities. It was clear that many didn’t agree with the strike; instead, they saw a loss of teaching hours, and a direct attack on their education.
But this isn’t how it should have been. It is true that lecturers were primarily concerned with the decline of pay against the rise of living costs and income to the university, but the aim of the strike contained many other terms that staff are continually trying to negotiate with university employers. As well as gender equality pay, lecturers are extremely concerned with the notion that will impact students the most: the privatisation of education. Ross Adamson, a lecturer at the University of Brighton, discussed how this will affect the choices that students take when applying for university; “The thing about privatisation is that it will encourage students to choose subjects which they think will have the most financial return. This, over time, may see fewer students choosing courses within the arts and humanities subjects.”
And it isn’t just the impact this will have on a student’s course choice. Dr Vy Rajapillai agrees with her colleague, but believes it will put students off coming to university altogether; “People who cannot afford the costs, or take on the debt of £9000 a year, are not going to come to university even if they have big ambitions to come here. Instead of going on the basis of who has the merit, it’s going on the basis of who has the money.”
So it’s clear that lecturers and staff weren’t just striking for the sake of themselves; they were also concerned of the welfare of current and future students. So why didn’t the students see it this way?
Toine Hodgkiss is an Architecture student currently studying for his Masters degree. Toine tried to enter the Mouslecoomb campus on the day of the strike, only to be denied access to the library and other facilities when he approached the university. With just two days before one of his assessments was due in, it’s fair to say that his annoyance was fairly reasonable. He had some brief knowledge when asked about his understanding of the strike, but it was clear that he wasn’t aware of all the terms the lecturers and staff were fighting for; “I understood that the strike was based around the tutors’ pay and their demand for an increase.”
But, like many other students, Toine saw the strike only as a loss to his own and his peer’s education; “I didn’t think it was right that I couldn’t access many of the facilities that I would normally be able to. University costs students a lot of money, and it is hard to actually justify the fees for the course I am doing anyway, let alone when I cannot freely access certain facilities due to a strike.”
Toine wasn’t the only student who tried to enter the campus that day, and he certainly wasn’t the only one to disagree with the demonstration. But if one of the main concerns of the lecturers’ strike was for their students, then why were so many students frustrated by it? The only rational answer seems to be, they simply didn’t understand that they were a big part of it.
Instead of supporting the strike like the lecturers had hoped, many students were convinced that it was a pointless exercise that had a detrimental effect on their education. The main communication method that made students aware of the strike appeared to be only leaflets and word of mouth. Some students claimed to not have known about the strike until somebody else mentioned it to them just a few days before it took place. It’s no wonder then, that the students didn’t have any understanding of it, if they didn’t even know it was happening. Perhaps what is needed if there is to be any further action taking place, is more communication between lecturers and students. This way, better opportunities are likely to present themselves within the university for both groups.
Cancellation of lectures is something neither students nor lecturers want. Regardless, if strike action is very likely to be a regular occurrence in the future, there will be even more days where the university is inevitably closed. Although this might be a problem difficult to solve in the near future, it’s important to focus on both the short term and long term impact.
In the short term, there is going to be a negative impact on university life; a few missing lectures can prove to be a struggle within the course for students. However, the right amount of communication and explanation from lecturers can encourage students to support what they are fighting for. After students are made aware of the positive long term impact of strike action, the relationship between teachers and their pupils will be become stronger due to an understanding of each other’s needs.