This evening student activists from Cambridge Defend Education prevented David Willetts, the Minister of State for Universities and Science, from delivering a lecture on ‘The Idea of the University’ in the Lady Mitchell Hall lecture theatre.
As Willetts took the stage, activists collectively read an address which was repeated throughout the hall, echoing the worldwide ‘Occupy Movement’. It made clear that he was not welcome and that his mind was made up before the debate began.
After the speech, during which Willetts remained silent, Cambridge Defend Education occupied the stage, prompting the minister to leave. The group then delivered a speech on the catastrophic impact of the White Paper, should it be implemented.
Addressing the issue of free speech, an occupier commented: “Those who think that letting the talk go ahead would have influenced the debate on higher education are misguided. We have marched for a year, been kettled repeatedly and threatened with rubber bullets. Willetts has made up his mind; he is not for turning. That is why we shut him down.”
We understand some people’s concerns about freedom of speech and the value of open debate. But the discussion planned for today about the ‘idea of the university’ was a sham from the beginning. Debate over the future of higher education has been foreclosed by the government, with the voices of students and academics completely ignored.
The organisers of the series of talks of which Willetts was part neglected to invite any student speakers. Willetts came not to invite participation in the making of government policy, but as part of an extended and cynical PR exercise.
“No question, however carefully worded and rationally compelling, would have had the same impact as our action. We apologise to those who were denied this opportunity but Willetts has spoken before and he will speak again. Ahead of the strikes on November 30th, the present moment calls for more innovative and immediate tactics.”
I don’t see how delivering a lecture to, and taking questions from, a group of academics and students who, most likely, largely disagree with him at an event which was receiving no obvious media coverage, would’ve been a PR exercise. If it were, it’d be a pretty crap one.
I didn’t attend tonight to hear the views of people I largely agree with belligerently blared out. I went to hear a man with whom I profoundly disagree, and to hear his responses to questions posed by people much more intelligent and articulate than me who share my objections to the policies of Mr Willet. It’s a real shame that this opportunity was squandered by your group.
Well done. Exactly right to reject the charade of ‘open debate’, dialogue and free speech. There is no debate, only power and influence imposing these disgusting reforms. Keep it up!
I am a student at the Education Faculty researching social mobility and equality of participation in higher education. I came to David Willetts’ talk tonight with the hope of gaining some understanding of his conception of the modern university. After all, it is impossible to debate the impact of tuition fees on our society without understanding what our politicians conceive the purpose of universities to be.
I was utterly disappointed by the demonstration which disrupted and ultimately put an end to the talk. The speech itself was so pretentious in its style that the underlying message was lost. Furthermore, I still do not know what the intended message was. Who were you trying to impress?
In a room full of members of the University of Cambridge, you were preaching to the converted if trying to persuade any of us that higher tuition fees are wrong. Meanwhile, psychology and common sense tells us that any politician faced with this action would swiftly disregard it as the expression of extremists, not the opinions of populous to which he is bound to respond.
This action took away our right to hear an elected politician speak, and our right of self-expression in return. I do not believe that the outcome of your protest was helpful or effective, nor justifiable given the impact it had on every other individual in the room.
You might also be interested in the following item:
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/2011/11/488987.html
Feel free to leave comments/additions.
Also, it would be really nice if you could perhaps publish some extracts from your speech there, so people can study it!
You were not echoing the worldwide ‘Occupy’ movement. If you were, you would have democratically engaged with the other 200 or so people in the room and taken a vote, rather than leaping in regardless to sabotage an event — all in the self-important belief that you preaching to the converted was more vital than us professing our views. Academics and students are not, as your supporters seem to believe on Varsity and elsewhere, under the illusion that a few well-pointed questions can change policy, far from it. But we want to hear the mouths of government and confront them with their own voices. We rarely get that opportunity, however dismal it might seem. You denied the majority of the room that space for debate so that the minority could shout over everything, in the process handing the government yet another PR coup. You could have easily let Willetts speak after delivering your “epistle”, dominated the Q&A, even heckled parts of the speech. Instead you chose to be outright wreckers. The ridiculous thing is nobody was keeping you out, nobody was banning questions, you could have voiced YOUR idea of the university to us and to the man himself — only with the apparent inconvenience that you might have to hear those other than yourself talk. A total charade.
Our action was an emergency response. The white paper must be stopped, or the freedom of speech of our younger brothers and sisters will be mutilated irreparably by their preclosure from higher education. The right of the masses to the university space is more important than the indulgence of faux-debate by those who are already here. The White Paper is being pushed as we speak. This is no time for niceties.
Here are my thoughts on this event, and I invite all criticisms: http://sein-und-zeit.tumblr.com/post/13195925810/why-i-disagree-on-cde-protest
Inspiring stuff, guys. How ridiculous that the organiser apologised to those “who came for a serious debate”. As if that’s even possible. Willetts might as well give a talk to a bunch of turkeys about Thanksgiving. There would be no more reason for them to engage in debate than students today.
I am a left wing individual, who has in the past taken part in two university building occupations. I have no idea what you were trying to do here. You have alienated anyone interested in the debate, given an immense stick to the right with which to beat us (irritating moderates, perpetuating negative stereotypes and destroying any chance of dialogue) and achieved nothing but a very limited show of brute force. What was the best-case intention of this action? How did you think this would be perceived? What were you trying to prove?
I would genuinely like to know, because as it is I despair of what passes for direct action at one of the country’s most respected universities.
Pingback: I am Spark-ticus! – Street battles in Egypt, occupations everywhere else. | Cautiously pessimistic
The default reaction of most people has been to criticize the students for not upholding the freedom of speech tradition. To me (someone who does not frequently find himself thinking about such philosophical subjects), this is puzzling for the following reasons:
1. Isn’t that right just what the students are trying to defend? If anyone thinks that after going down the market forces route, there will remain any ‘freedom of speech’ in universities I have a very attractive Nigerian investment opportunity for them. Talk to people who have been denied tenure in prestigeous US schools because they signed particular petitions.
2. Did the protesters actually take Willetts’ right to speak away from him? This man is a government minister. He has the media standing by his doorstep 24/7. Every word of his is carried by prestigeous publications. More importantly, the students and Willetts are in a highly unequal relationship. It is not a matter of denying the right of the BNP or some rabid Mosque Imam to free speech. They have no power over the students. Willetts does, and has shown it by the way he has shoved the changes down our throats, whether we like it or not. If someone abuses his or her position (by no stretch of imagination did the people give him a mandate to triple tuition fees) so blatantly, and with such utter disregard to our rights, are we still obliged to let him deliver sermons on the opposite to us? Wouldn’t listening to Willetts amount to legitimizing his changes – he can then go and enter this ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’ as a consultative exercise in his ledger. Aren’t the colonized justified in telling the colonizer to piss off? Willetts has already screwed the university enough, do we now have to show him respect too?
We are all both *Principals* and *Agents.* Try:
http://jockbytes.blogspot.com/2011/11/idea-of-university-past-present-future.html
Regards
Jock