We are writing you both to express our deep concern at the proposal to close the School of Music, and also to encourage you to get involved in the campaign to save the department. This is a matter of concern to UCU as our members’ posts are at risk of redundancy should the proposal to close the School of Music be accepted at Senate on 9th November and Council on 23rd November. Whilst we accept that UEA will try to redeploy staff in order to avoid individuals finding themselves without future employment, make no mistake – their current posts WILL CEASE TO EXIST, as will the School of Music.
NEW! Read the official MUS staff response to the proposed closure
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
We encourage you to get involved in the Save UEA Music campaign, which has now generated growing support on campus, media attention and the endorsement of Jools Holland, Brian Eno and Lauren Laverne. You can join their Facebook group and follow them on Twitter. Please also sign the petition opposing the closure and encourage others to sign. You can also comment on this article in Times Higher Education.
There is a lobby of the Senate meeting planned on Wednesday, 9 November at 13.30 outside the Registry preceded by a rally in the Square at 12.30 and a march to the Registry (Facebook event here). UCU support this and urge you to come along to show your support for the school of music. Please let colleagues who are not union members know of this as well. This is not just a matter of interest to union members!
We also encourage you to write the Vice Chancellor at e.acton@uea.ac.uk and make your views known. If you would like to get more involved, there is a planning meeting to discuss the logistics of Wednesday’s rally and march; it will take place on Monday at 4PM in LCR, Union House.
WHY WE ARE OPPOSED TO CLOSING THE SCHOOL OF MUSIC
The arts are incredibly valuable for what they offer to higher education and to society, in general in terms of the development of critical and creative thinking. They are particularly vulnerable to cuts within a climate where economic value is seen as the only index of worth.
The benefits of the School of Music at UEA extend well beyond the department itself. It is an important resource to students and staff in other departments, including those outside the arts and humanities, contributing to the environment of interdisciplinary research and collaboration which makes UEA so unique. The UEA orchestra and other public programmes are well known and enjoyed by many on campus and within the local community and whilst there is currently a commitment to safeguard these resources we are concerned about their future standing within the music community should the academic standing of the school be removed.
We are troubled that one of the main justifications for the proposal to close the department was its predicted REF rating. If the REF rating were to be accepted as a valid criterion when judging whether departments should be closed, how many schools at UEA can be sure that their future is safe?
We are equally concerned about the timing of the announcements; the news has been a great shock to staff and students, who did not hear about it until very recently. Other than the Head of School, no colleagues from the school of music were involved in the review process.
The proposal to close the School of Music points to a disturbing view of Higher Education as a “competitive and market-focused environment”, as the Vice-Chancellor put it, where departments can be closed for financial reasons at any time, irrespective of what they offer to UEA and the community, and where we have to continually worry that we could be next.
We need music graduates, as the entertainment industry provides lots of cash into the ecconomy.
We need music graduates, the music industry provides loads of cash into the ecconomy.
“A 2008 publication from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reported that the creative industries employ 2 million people in Britain and contribute £60 billion to the economy each year, 7.3 percent of UK GDP.”
Creative Britain, New Talents for the New Economy, DCMS, 2008
If your Vice Chancellor is that “market focused”, maybe he should move with the times!
Copy of letter sent to Edward Acton today.
To: Vice-chancellor
Cc: Prof Ian Harvey (chair Music Review Panel)
Dear Vice-Chancellor,
I write with concern over the proposed closure of the School of Music, which would be a great loss to the university and to the city. Is there any other school at UEA which contributes as much to the cultural life of the university and to the city? A large proportion of this contribution is through public performances the orchestra and choirs. I note the good intentions of the review panel that this should continue if and after MUS ceases teaching, and I would like to offer three observations on this:
1) The quality of performances would suffer greatly from the removal of the nucleus of music students.
I write from experience of playing in the orchestra first in the early 80’s, and then from the early 90’s until 2001 (when I lost my useful hearing for playing music). As the review panel notes, there have always been many non-music students, and staff, playing in the orchestra. I believe that the typical contribution of the music students to the high standard of playing is disproportionate to their number. It has always been the case that many of the star players are music students, and these matter a great deal to the quality. As an aside, I believe UEA is fortunate to have a conductor of the standard of Sharon Choa in-house, and that we would be lucky indeed to find someone of this standard should she move elsewhere as a result of closure.
2) Some potential applicants to other schools would be discouraged by the lack of a music department or high-quality campus music.
I can only speak for myself here, but the presence of a strong music department (and university ensembles to which I contributed much as a performer) at Bristol University was a significant factor in choosing it as my first choice institution (to study in the sciences).
I suspect that I am far from alone in this.
3) Continuation of university music post-MUS will require ongoing financial support.
I believe that the subsidy proposed to continue to support campus music post-MUS will need to be significant. How much difference is there between this cost and the sum needed to continue with and grow MUS until it can be more financially viable?
Clearly MUS makes many other contributions to the university. Also, I cannot speak with any great knowledge over the general financial situation, so I have focussed on what I know and my belief that the loss to the university and city would be great. I urge you to ensure effective financial support to continued musical performance if MUS closes (and I’m not doing this from selfish motives, as I can’t hear music any more), but particularly I hope that MUS can be saved as this is necessary to maintain the important cultural contribution of music to campus and city.
With best regards,
Christopher Dunlop
ITCS
Dear Professor Acton,
Re: Proposal to Close the UEA School of Music
Recommendation of the University’s Music Review Panel 26.10.2011
I am writing to urge you to withdraw this proposal of the recent Music Review from consideration on the grounds that it is procedurally, legally, ideologically and ethically unsound; and to instigate a new transparent, evidence-based, independent Review to produce fair and practical recommendations for carrying on the work of this historic department, which was founded with the help of one of the UK’s most renowned modern composers, Benjamin Britten.
Procedurally unsound because:
1) The Music Review was carried out in violation of the University’s ‘Staff Recognition and Procedure Agreement’, in which the University commits to “negotiate and consult through the recognised machinery on matters covered by the agreement” (Part I: 6) and to “give staff a voice in decisions that affect them, and a chance to affect such decisions”. (Part II: 9)
2) The only representative on the panel was the acting Head of School, Professor John Charmley who:
a. Is only an interim ‘Acting’ Head and does not have the qualifications or authority to speak on behalf of the staff and students of the School of Music regarding major, long-term change;
b. Is also the Head of the School of History, and thus has a conflict of interest with regard to the findings of such a report.
3) No other staff members from the School of Music were interviewed by the panel. It is standard practice in organizational restructuring, especially of publically funded institutions, to involve stakeholders in reviews or recommendations for major change.
4) Not enough time was given to consider the data. The Review Panel met on only three occasions.
5) The Review was carried out by the university with no input from any independent source, such as a consultant or outside music expert/ education specialist. Given this fact, it is dubious to what extent the recommendations and arguments presented in the Report can be considered impartial, viable and informed options for reform.
Legally unsound because:
6) Under current UK Employment Law, the University is legally obliged to communicate and consult with their employees when planning changes that involve redundancies, transfer of undertakings (TUPE), restructuring and alterations to individual contracts. Given the inadequate level and nature of staff consultation and representation, University employees affected by the recommendation may submit a claim to the Employment Tribunal.
Ideologically unsound because:
7) Although the Report purports to present a fair picture, its main
argument operates on the basis of assumptions about the role of education, the value of university music departments, and the nature of academic music, which are not only unsupported by evidence, but out of touch with public opinion and the academic/arts community. A major assumption is that each university department should necessarily support itself financially, i.e. through making research grant applications, rather than e.g. the university being a co-operative organization which supports some degrees and departments on the basis of cultural value, community enrichment and artistic merit, using the surplus revenue brought in by other, more economically lucrative, disciplines.
To demonstrate that the report is:
a) Not representative of the majority view of university
staff and students.
• Over 4000 have signed the ‘Save UEA Music Petition’ campaigning to save the UEA School of Music. 80 staff and students attended a protest meeting held on Thursday 3rd November 2011.
• The School is ranked #12 in the 2011 Guardian League Tables (That is 7 places higher than the university as a whole).
• The School is ranked 3rd in the National Student Survey for student satisfaction.
• The School of Music has the highest graduate employment rate of all UEA departments, including professional schools.
• The School has the highest conversion rate of prospective to actual students, out of all UEA departments.
b) At odds with the University’s own institutional goals, as
presented in the 2008-2012 corporate plan.
• In the 2008-2012 corporate plan, the UEA pledges to “Develop the University’s cultural role as contributor and custodian through the work of the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, the East Anglian Film Archive, the School of Music, the Centre for Creative and Performing Arts, and the Arthur Miller Centre.”
c) Out of touch with the UK Arts community, including
state-funded grant-giving bodies such as the AHRC.
• Organizations such as the AHRC do not see the value of the arts as dependent upon or equivalent to economic return. Rather than using the arts to generate income, their view is to use money generated elsewhere to invest in the non-financially-measurable impact of the arts on the lives of individuals and the community as a whole.
Ethically unsound because:
8) The current situation of the School was brought about in part by the University’s own historical mismanagement of the department. This can be seen from the way in which the University:
• Failed to provide the School with the necessary support and funding to implement recommendations for additional courses made by the University in the previous 2002 Review;
• Actively encouraged the School to focus on teaching rather than research;
• Did not provide the School with adequate leadership when it failed to replace the previous Head of the School.
Conclusion:
In light of the University’s partial responsibility for the allegedly “unviable” situation of the School of Music, it would be irresponsible and reprehensible for the University to continue to consider the recommendations of a review which did not adhere to basic legal requirements or standards of good practice; relied on assumptions rather than gathering sufficient evidence or feedback to support its conclusions; and did not have the expertise or authority to make the judgements which it did.
Furthermore, there is a strong case to be made from the evidence that is contained in the report, that further investment in the School of Music would build on its current success to make it a considerable asset to the University – both in terms of research and educational engagement. This potential could be explored further by carrying out an independent, properly informed review of the activities of the School of Music, which would make practical recommendations for future management of the School based on evidence and expertise.
So the world does not need music any more?
Who has the right to say this to the people?
People must protest as they are doing the world over.
I will protest so the people can have music.