La démocratie se meurt d’euphémismes. A l’heure où Christchurch, la Nouvelle-Zélande, et le monde pleurent de nouvelles victimes musulmanes du terrorisme, la compassion hypocrite de l’extrême-droite française s’affiche sur les réseaux sociaux. Il est donc grand temps – si ce n’est déjà trop tard – de souligner le rôle central que joue cette droite dite identitaire dans les déchaînements de violence qui se multiplient au sein de nos sociétés libérales. L’épithète identitaire masque en effet bien mal le caractère fondamentalement raciste et violent de cette droite anti-démocratique. Les prétentions littéraires et philosophiques de ses nouveaux hérauts que la presse conservatrice – Le Figaro en tête – aime à célébrer, ne sauraient nous abuser ; leurs idées doivent être combattues pour ce qu’elles sont. Sous couvert d’angoisses civilisationnelles et identitaires, ils portent en effet un programme et une méthode politiques dont la France comme le monde ont déjà trop souffert au cours du vingtième siècle.
Continue readingDear Stuart… A letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Warwick
This is the letter I just sent to Professor Stuart Croft about the current USS strike.
Professor Stuart Croft
Vice-Chancellor and President
University of Warwick
Dear Stuart,
I hope this finds you well.
I am writing with regard to the ongoing strike action in which I am taking part.
I am writing to you in your capacity as Vice-Chancellor and President of our University, but also in recognition and appreciation of the constructive role you have been playing in the debate over the future of USS.
You are undoubtedly aware of the strength of feeling, of the frustration, and indeed anger elicited by the agreement proposed by UUK and UCU under the auspices of ACAS. There are several reasons why I spoke and voted against this deal at the meeting organized yesterday on campus. I explained them to my students this morning. I am sure you are familiar with all the objections raised by colleagues across campus and up and down the country. There is certainly little need for me to reiterate them.
I hope you will nonetheless allow me to stress a few points of critical importance. We engaged in strike action with great reluctance, fully aware of the costs we would bear personally and mindful of the impact it could have on our students. We continue to protest with great resolve, for this crisis was forced upon us and our students by UUK’s poor handling of the situation. I can assure you that I would much rather be teaching history than striking, demonstrating, and reading about the intricacies of pension policy!
I, like my colleagues on strike, resent and reject the notion that we do not have our students’ best interests at heart. UUK’s continuing attempts to pit us against them and to question our commitment to their education do little to hasten the resolution of this dispute.
It is clear to me and to many colleagues that UUK and UCU will not find a satisfactory and lasting agreement until the valuation of USS can command the confidence of academic and administrative staff across the sector. We cannot accept transitional arrangements, let alone a new regime, based on a valuation which has now lost all credibility. I understand that USS and UUK are operating under the deadline imposed by the Pensions Regulator, but the strike is unlikely to be suspended until confidence has been restored in the valuation process.
May I therefore respectfully suggest that you explore the possibility of convening an extraordinary Warwick Commission on the state and future of USS? I do not underestimate the political sensitivities and practical difficulties of such an initiative. However I believe it would be a good way to ensure that the debate and potential reform of USS are driven by an immediate, independent, and critical review of the evidence and of all available options.
Finally, I was hoping you would be able to impress upon your fellow Vice-Chancellors the damage that the current crisis is causing to the reputation of British universities and to their capacity to retain and attract staff. For the best part of two decades, British universities have been able to attract excellent teaching, research, and administrative staff. The degree of internationalization they are rightly proud of is testament to the comparative advantage they have long enjoyed over their continental European counterparts in particular.
This advantage has been significantly eroded since 2010 as a result of the financial crisis and of the policy of the Coalition and Conservative governments.
The income of academic staff has been steadily falling in real terms since 2010 and the current and future inflationary pressures will only worsen our personal financial positions. The Government’s commitment to the marketization of higher education is also having a direct impact on staff workload and working conditions, as it devalues our roles and missions as educators, scholars, and scientists. The multiplication of costly evaluation exercises has done precious little to inform students and taxpayers of the quality of research and tuition delivered by our institutions. The undeniable excellence of British universities has arguably been achieved and maintained in spite of – but not thanks to – the dominant managerial obsession with processes and metrics.
With the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, our universities and research organizations now face a series of critical challenges. As I wrote in our previous exchange, I know and I am thankful for the efforts you are making to ensure our University is ready to deal with the impending shock of Brexit. I am particularly grateful for the personal and institutional solidarity you expressed to EU citizens.
The dispute over USS therefore intervenes in a context defined by the end of freedom of movement, our loss of access to EU funding, the financial and institutional evisceration of the research councils, the devaluation of the Pound, and the continuing deterioration of public services and quality of life in the UK. Should UUK continue to insist on a drastic reduction of our pension entitlement, many colleagues – including many British citizens – will seriously question the opportunity to stay in the UK, at a time when the economic and professional environment is rapidly improving on the Continent. It truly pains me to write this, but I feel it is my responsibility to do so.
I have made my home in this country and I owe a massive intellectual and professional debt to British colleagues and British institutions. I am immensely proud of my colleagues in the Department of History. I know their talent and their dedication to teaching and scholarship and I am truly humbled to be working alongside them.
In innumerable conversations with colleagues across campus, before and during the strike, I heard the pride we take in the education we provide here at Warwick; the pride we take in the intellectual, professional, and personal development of our students; the pride we take in their current and future achievements.
It is high time the UUK and USS leadership recognized that our first loyalty goes to our students and our colleagues. It is high time they stopped questioning our unwavering commitment to our students’ education. It is high time they recognized the damage the current dispute is causing to higher education in Britain and faced up to their responsibility in bringing it out.
I am therefore calling upon you as our Vice-Chancellor and President, as a senior colleague, as a scholar and educator, to impress upon the leadership of UUK and USS the imperious necessity for them to rebuild our confidence in their capacity to lead the sector. For we – academics, administrators, students – are the university. For they no longer speak on our behalf.
Thank you very much for reading what was never intended to be such a long message!
Apologetically and respectfully, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
Pierre Purseigle
Why we fight on…
This is the email I just sent to all my students to explain why I continue to take part in strike action today.
Dear all,
Sincere apologies for this belated email.
I am writing to let you know that I am on strike today and that my lecture is cancelled as a result.
As you certainly know by now, the deal put forward by UUK and UCU negotiators was overwhelmingly rejected by colleagues across the country.
I spoke against the deal at the emergency meeting organised on campus yesterday morning. The result of our vote gives you a sense of the strength of feeling at Warwick. Out of the 120 attendees, 115 rejected the deal; 5 abstained; and no one voted in favour.
There are five main reasons why I voted against the proposed deal.
First, this deal was based on a valuation of the USS fund that has been fundamentally undermined by critiques. I am ready to be convinced by the valuation exercise. However, UUK has so far failed to demonstrate that the fund is in deficit. I don’t see why I should accept a baseless argument from UUK, when I keep banging on about the need to mobilise appropriate evidence in your essays!!!
Second, as I wrote yesterday, the deal would have represented a significant deterioration of our working conditions. Our accrual rate (the proportion of your final salary that you receive as pension for each year you are a member of the scheme) would have moved from 1/75 to 1/85. Our employee contribution would have been raised from 8 to 8.7%.
Third, the increase of our accrued pensions would have been capped at 2.5% per annum even though inflation is already past this mark. In other words, and for the foreseeable future, this deal effectively guaranteed a deterioration of our pensions (You will find a technical explanation here).
Fourth, the salary threshold for a move from a Defined Benefit regime to one of Defined Contributions would have been placed at £42k. This would have disproportionately affected early-career researchers. One of my jobs is to help PhD students and early-career researchers enter into the academic profession. I am not ready to betray them.
Fifth, the text of agreement evoked the need for “trust to be rebuilt following this dispute” and put the onus on striking staff to “minimise the disruption to students” by rescheduling lectures and classes. This did not only represent a violation of our right to withdraw our labour; it also implied that we are responsible for this situation. I reject and resent this assumption.
I would much, much rather be teaching history than striking and demonstrating (and reading about the intricacies of pension policy). We are well aware of the impact the strike has on our students; certainly more than the chief executive of UUK who never even worked as an academic. Every day of the strike costs us money; money we need to pay rent and bills. You can trust me when I say that I think long and hard about withdrawing my labour. This crisis was forced upon us by the leadership of UUK and we will not let them shy away from their responsibility.
They assumed that we would not practice the critical skills we endeavour to teach you; that we would blissfully accept further deterioration of our working conditions without checking the evidence put forward. Most fundamentally, they chose to shift their financial liability onto individual members of staff to improve their position on the financial markets. They effectively argue that the quality of a university is best expressed in shiny new buildings and fancy marketing campaigns. They believe you are not here to learn and grow, but to consume whatever products will be put in front of you.
They assume that, like them, you will prioritise the value of bonds over the true value of a university: its academic and administrative staff; their commitment to provide an education and not to sell degrees to unsuspecting punters. A university is first and foremost a community of learners and scholars. I do not care if you cannot translate the value of an education into credit ratings, for education is not a transaction. I know I am not a perfect teacher and scholar; I know my flaws and limitations. But I also know I care passionately about the work we do together in lecture halls and seminar rooms. For we – you, me, and our fellow students and scholars – are the university. This is also what is at stake here: the meaning of a university education and the worth of teachers, scholars, and administrators.
So we fight on, reluctantly but with resolve.
Best wishes,
Pierre
Why I am on strike today
This is the email I sent my students today to explain the reasons why I am joining the UCU strike.
“Dear all,
I am writing to let you know that I will be taking part in the strike called by the Universities and College Union in protest against the proposed changes to our pension scheme (USS). As a result, I will not be teaching or be available for meetings or office hours today.
Although I am no longer a union member, I am taking part in this strike to defend what is an essential part of our compensation package. I don’t imagine you have any more of a passion for pension policy than I do, but it is important for me to explain why I have taken this decision. None of us ever decides to strike on a whim. We know full well that this is likely to impact our students and strike action is only a last resort for us. I have been teaching in the UK for 15 years and this is the first time I took part in strike action in this country.
Our employers’ organization – Universities UK – have decided to transform our pension scheme from a Defined Benefit scheme to a Defined Contribution scheme. The former guarantees a decent pension based on years of service and employee’s contribution; the latter only guarantees the level of contribution, while the eventual level of our pension would depend on the performance and vagaries of financial markets.
In concrete terms, I would lose 30% of my expected pension. The situation would be even worse for new entrants into the profession, who are expected to lose between 39 and 44% of their expected pension. The situation is particularly dire for universities created before 1992. Colleagues working in post-92 universities are enrolled into the Teachers’ Pension Scheme and would receive, over the course of their retirement, £400,000 more than we would under the proposed changes.
The decision to slash our pension was taken even though only a minority of employers (42% vs 58% of 116 responses) objected to the very modest raise in contributions required to sustain the scheme in its current form. The decision appears all the more egregious than the number of objections was inflated by the vote of individual Oxbridge colleges (16) allowed to vote in addition to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. By contrast, a number of Vice-Chancellors, including Warwick’s Stuart Croft, have denounced UUK’s calculations and called for negotiations to continue.
It’s important for me to explain why we are so attached to a decent pension. Academics do not get into this profession to make money. Indeed, our salaries a significantly lower than those of workers with similar qualifications and experience, even if we do work as many and often more hours per week.
Our careers also start later – often in our late 20s-early 30s – as very few colleagues are recruited straight after obtaining their PhD. Most Lecturers/Assistant Professors are recruited after several years accumulating teaching and research experience as casual, often poorly paid, teaching and research fellows. The competition for jobs is so fierce that a permanent position in modern history routinely attracts over 100 applicants from around the world. Outstanding teachers and scholars often spend years on the job market.
We renounce the higher salaries we could command in the private sector to do a job we love. We have done so because we have always been confident that we would nonetheless receive a decent pension after retirement. Today, our employers threaten to break this critical part of our contract.
I do have a responsibility towards the doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers that I supervise. Indeed, it is our collective responsibility to protect the interest of the next generations of academics, of those early-career researchers who often are in such precarious and legal positions that they cannot afford to strike to defend their own right to a decent pension.
For we should not and cannot take pension provisions for granted. Old age pensions were only secured thanks to the struggle of generations of workers since the nineteenth century. Their relentless advocacy led to strikes, social movements, and their collective mobilization took many forms. Today, after decades of attacks against workers’ rights, pensions are routinely described as an outdated privilege, while they are only ever were a basic social right. In defending our pension and that of our future colleagues, we are also defending your right to a decent pension.
I, like other colleagues on strike, understand the concern and anxieties of our students. We did not wish for this strike and we do hope that negotiations will resume as soon as possible and hopefully today. I will email you all again on the morning of every day of strike, so you know precisely when I will be teaching or not.
In the meantime, I urge you to engage with this debate. Read about it, take a look at the evidence, and discuss it with your fellow students and your tutors. I hope you will support our movement but I also encourage you to let me know if you disagree with the position I took. A democracy dies when debates are suppressed.
All the very best,
Pierre”
Workshop: Global warfare, peace-making, and the travails of liberalism, 1914-1920
Friday, 20 October 2017
University of Warwick, Institute of Advanced Studies
10am – 1pm.
Empires and Occupations: Global Dynamics of the Illiberal Wartime State, 1914-1918
Prof. John Horne (TCD/Oxford)
Nineteenth century liberalism rode high on the eve of World War One. Mass politics, militarization, trade protection and state intervention signalled the strains it faced, but few predicted that the tide had turned on a model based on ideals of personal freedom, the rule of law and self-regulation (economic and other). That the war undermined the liberal order has long been recognized in national histories. This paper, however, will suggest that a reciprocal global dynamic was at work whereby wartime states sought illiberal solutions in order to wage ‘total war’ not only at home but also, and even more so, in external zones of dominance where they were easier to apply. These consisted of captive populations within Europe and colonial populations outside. Exploiting colonies was a well-established practice of even the most ‘liberal’ empires. Treating areas of Europe like colonies was not, except on the more remote peripheries of the Caucasus or (on some readings) in Ireland. The paper will consider the links between these two forms of exploitation during the war as well as the comparisons between them. It will comment briefly on the different legacies that they left in the post-war period. The argument will be general but the empirical focus will be on colonial French North Africa and German-occupied France and Belgium.
John Horne is currently Leverhulme Visiting Professor of History at Oxford University. He is emeritus Fellow of Trinity College Dublin, where he was Professor of Modern European History until 2015, and the founder of the Centre for War Studies in 2007. A Member of the Royal Irish Academy, he is also on the Executive Board of the Historial de la Grande Guerre, Péronne. Of British-Australian parentage and upbringing, he did his undergraduate studies at the University of Adelaide and then at Balliol College, Oxford, before taking his D. Phil. at the University of Sussex. He went to work in Trinity College Dublin at the end of the 1970s. He has held visiting posts at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Study, Germany, and Balliol College, Oxford. He has written extensively on modern France and the transnational history of the Great War. Among his books are: (with Alan Kramer), German Atrocities, 1914. A History of Denial (New Haven, Yale, 2001), translated into German (2003) and French (2005); (ed.) A Companion to World War One (Oxford, Blackwell-Wiley, 2010); (ed.) Vers la guerre totale: le tournant de 1914-1915 (Paris, Tallandier, 2010); and with Robert Gerwarth, War in Peace: Paramilitary Violence in Europe after the Great War (Oxford University Press, 2012). He is working currently on a history of the French experiences of the Great War.
The Sovereignty of Justice: The Germans at Versailles, May-June 1920
Prof. Leonard Smith (Oberlin College)
Fully realizing a “just peace” at the Paris Peace Conference meant redefining the role of “justice” in the international system. The Allied and Associated Powers originally took two approaches to defining “justice,” one a compensatory approach rooted in civil law, the other a “responsibilities” approach rooted in criminal law. The two approaches inevitably became muddled as the conference proceeded. In the end, and for very different reasons, the Germans as well as the allies cooperated in the construction of Germany as a criminalized once-and-future Great Power.
Leonard V. Smith is Frederick B. Artz Professor of History of Oberlin College. Educated at Oberlin College and Columbia University, he is the author of: The Embattled Self: French Soldiers’ Testimony of the Great War (Cornell University Press, 2007); France and the Great War, 1914-1918 (with Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau and Annette Becker, Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Between Mutiny and Obedience: The Case of the French Fifth Infantry Division During World War I (Princeton University Press, 1994). He also coedited France at War: Vichy and the Historians (Berg, 2000, French edition 2004). He has held fellowships from the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Humanities Center. Smith has been a visiting professor at the Mershon Center, Ohio State University (spring 2015); École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (January 2012), Claremont McKenna College (fall 2008, as William F. Podlich Distinguished Fellow), and the Associated Kyoto Program at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan (fall 2004). Smith’s current monograph project, Sovereignty at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919: The ‘Laboratory over a Vast Cemetery,’ is nearly complete, and will be published by Oxford University Press (Publisher’s website). His most recent publications include “Drawing Borders in the Middle East after the Great War: Political Geography and ‘Subject Peoples’,” First World War Studies (2016); and “France, the Great War, and the ‘Return to Experience’,” World War I Centennial Series, Journal of Modern History (2016).
Contact: Pierre Purseigle (p.purseigle@warwick.ac.uk)