Starr's Voice

Students Give Up Plastic For Lent

2009-03-10T12:54:00.000Z

The period leading up to Easter is usually signified by many across the world by giving up something they usually cannot do without with for a forty day period. The most common items surrendered during this time are chocolate and alcohol. However, a group of Lancaster students along with some members of staff have gone a step further by giving up plastic for lent.

It is well documented that plastic takes anything from 400-1000 years to decompose, persists in the food chain and also has an adverse effect of marine life and is therefore is greatly damaging to our environment and these students want to take a step in the eco-friendly direction. Yet despite this plastic is all around us and forms a part of virtually everything thing we see.

The group’s trials and tribulations can be followed at www.notoplastic.org.uk where you can find hints and tips on how to limit the use of plastic within your own lives. They will be also hosting a series of workshops and events, including showing a film ‘Hawaii: Message in the Waves,’ how to make your own cosmetics, yoghurt-making and trips to buy plastic free food. Eleanor Lamb, one of the students attempting this task, said 'I tried this for 3 months in the summer and it was great. It made me think in novel ways about what I was consuming and I got more acquainted with the local shops. I even tried brushing my teeth using ash from the fire.'

Given the presences of plastic in our everyday lives it seems this lent challenge is not one for the faint hearted. If you feel you could manage such a challenge you can sign up on the website.

College Bars – An Alternative Way for Success?

2009-02-15T22:21:00.000Z

In the previous article I suggested that there is a way for the bars to be successful and make some degree of profit. However, is this the only way? A simple lesson in business studies tells us that there are for vital ingredients to profitability; place, promotion, price and product. Get all four correct and success, in theory, is just around the corner.

Place is already provided by being on campus making it suitable for students, that much is obvious. Promotion is provided through society socials and college loyalty. Price, as seen in my previous article, could be altered to be more attractive, but what about product? It seems obvious to say that the bars will sell beverages of varying types and tastes, but one wonders whether or not the University has missed a masterstroke with what being available where.

In the current situation we have a vast number of largely generic bars. They all serve largely the same drinks and the same prices. An analogy can be seen with the demise of Woolworths. Woolworths was a very diverse chain selling anything from pick-a-mix to clothing. Almost everyone I talk to has different memories of Woolworths. Yet, it is this broadness that may be seen as one of the causes for its demise. Its desire to please a greater number of consumer groups moved it away from the quality available from competing high street stores.

At the moment the college bars are attempting to provide a variety of drinks to please all who enter. From traditional ale to vodka based fruit drinks. However, could it be said that the bars would be more successful if they were more selective in their drinks choice, possibly building a theme around their drinks menu. For example you could have one bar that focuses on its real ales, another which marketed itself as a wine bar and another being seen as more of a nightclub than a bar. There are a number of possibilities. Recreation of individuality among the bars may make them more appealing to students and help fight off the lure of town drinking. To maintain the business studies link, on economies of scale the bars would find themselves more successful as they would face less competition from each other due to the differences in personality.

This idea is by no means without flaw. Which college wants to have the non-alcoholic bar? Yet it does seem to provide a blue print for giving life back to the college bars that may see a much needed increase in unit sales. Individuality between the colleges is a key factor in a college system if they are not to be seen a glorified halls of residence. This individuality could begun with the bars.

People or Profit?

2009-02-08T19:22:00.000Z

A lot has been made over the past few years regarding the campus bars. Questions have been raised regarding the price of a pint of beer, the imposition of unrealistic targets and the centralisation of bar management which we are currently seeing; one has to ask, what is the point of the bars? What is it that they set out to achieve?

It is this question that is the basis for all the bar debates over the past few years as there seems to be a clear differences between how the bars are seen by the student population when compared to how they are seen by the university management. It would seem fair to say that the average student sees the campus bars as the living room of the campus accommodation where they can hang out with their mates over a nice drink while they discuss the ups and downs of the day. The University, however, appears to see the bars as a money making institute, another way for them to reach into the pockets of students following the high rent prices already seen for on-campus accommodation.

Yet, which viewpoint is correct? Should the students be given a place where they can afford to socialise in close proximity to the campus accommodation, or should the university continue to charge high prices in attempts to reach their desired targets?

It is clear to see that the current pricing plan is not keeping people in the campus bars, with the lower prices offered by bars in the town centre representing a better deal. Though, is high prices’ the best way to meet profit margins? Would it not be fair to say that a reduction in prices may result to a greater amount of unit sales, thus resulting in an increase in the profit made by the bars as well? Such a move would appear to fit both the desires of the students and demands of the University management and may make the currently empty bars once again the focus of college social life.

NUS Crackdown on Initiation Ceremonies

2009-02-01T16:50:00.000Z

The National Union of Students has announced a crackdown on sports team initiation ceremonies. The move has come after footage of a ceremony at the University of Gloucestershire was leaked to the BBC.

The footage showed students with plastic bags over their heads, drinking and vomiting, egged on by a student dressed in Nazi-style uniform. The students are seen vomiting onto the ground before being paraded through the streets. Such shocking footage, viewable on the BBC website, has triggered a knee jerk reaction from the NUS in which it calls for all ceremonies to be banned.

NUS president, Wes Streeting released a statement on behalf of the NUS stating: "We are totally opposed to student initiations. They put students at serious risk and exclude students who don't want to take part in that binge-drinking culture.”

It is fair to say that most initiation ceremonies may take on the form depicted in the video and that they usually result in humiliation and a hangover; it is believe that one in five involve some form physical abuse and there have been three deaths as a result of such ceremonies in recent years.

Whilst we have no official word on how these ceremonies take form within Lancaster University, though we believe they involve a vast amount of alcohol, it is clear to say there is a fine line between having a bit of fun and bullying the vulnerable. It is not clear how long initiation ceremonies have left, or if the NUS crackdown is going to have any effect. But the card is marked and it may be wise for any sports team considering performing any form of initiation ceremony to seek a different way to greet the newcomers to the club.

Grassroots Movement Takes Action over Bars

2009-01-24T17:59:00.001Z

Over the past few months there has been a lot of talk about the current situation with the campus bars and it appears that a groundswell of students have decided it was time to stop the talking and to start taking action.

The collection, (for that is what they like to be known as) who go by the name of Peak-A-Boo, have called for all students to make their stand and let the University know what they think about the ‘Company Bars.’ These are the bars that were placed under the management of David Peeks at the beginning of the academic year (Cartmel, Pendle and County) and only visit the few remaining College controlled bars, which they have aptly named as ‘sanctuary bars’.

Within their manifesto peak-a-boo ask that students boycott all the ‘Company Bars’ as well as all the vending machines on campus due to the large amount of profit made by the Catering department through them. They also call for the University to return the power of the bars to the Colleges and for a lowering in the prices so that they are more in line with those charged by other University bars across the country.

They also view the attitude and ineptitude of Mr Peeks, head of hospitality, and now ‘controller of the company bars as part of the problem and hope that this situation is remedied with a review of his position. Peek-A-Boo firmly believe that this whole issue is an attack on the integrity and autonomy of the colleges and should be fought with by tooth and imaginative nail. Peak-A-Boo emphasise for this coming term that students should be fought against with every tooth and nail:

1) Frequent sanctuary bars, not company bars
2) Find alternatives to the coke machines; go to the shops etc instead.
3) Circulate and photocopy posters and fly-post

Whilst the identity of those involved remains unknown, with the person I spoke to announcing herself only as Jenny, their message is clear and that it is now ‘time for action’ and they urge all students to ‘support them in the cause through the boycotts and displaying the anti-Peeks posters pictured.’ They also emphasise the tactic of spreading ideas for action amongst their friends and colleagues. Peak-A-Boo believe that everyone has the opportunity to influence this campaign through their participation as consumers, and that this action will continue until the bars are returned to a state of normality.

‘Stop the War!’ Cries Demonstrators

2009-01-18T18:30:00.001Z

Saturday 10th January saw Lancaster city centre give its opinions on the current ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip.

The recent conflict began on the 27th December 2008, and since more than 800 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians along with 13 Israelis as the hostilities enter into their third week. Of those who have died it is believed that more than 250 were children with more than 3250 individuals suffering injuries of various degrees. An Israeli attack has killed at least 43 people taking refuge in a UN school. In the Zeitoun district, at least 30 people were killed after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by the Israeli military. One medic treating the wounded from the attacks has commented that out of around 800 individuals he had seen, only 2 were Hamas fighters.

The demonstration was organised by the Lancaster Friends of Palestine, with support from the Quakers, and the ‘Stop the War Society’ from campus, with attendance at over 60 people, all voicing concern over the conflict and the loss of civilian life. Representatives of Amnesty International (Lancaster Branch) commented that they were disgusted with the ‘horrendous use of force by Israel in one of the most densely populated areas in the world,’ and that a continuation of the conflict would only succeed in creating ‘greater levels of anti-Israel feeling’ making any notion of peace in the Middle East ever harder to attain. With regards the demonstration they commented that they were glad to see that it had brought a lot of different groups together which shows a great desire within the community for the conflict to end.
Whilst one does not ignore the complicated issues within the Middle East, it would seem clear that a continuation of the ‘eye for an eye’ mentality that we can currently see will only succeed in making everyone blind.

Liberties, Principles and Politics

2008-06-28T09:27:00.001Z

In what has been a week of up and downs in the world of politics the head lining issue has been without a doubt the controversial 42 days detention without charge rule, which was passed by the House of Commons with a majority of nine. This move has now seen the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

The new 42 day rule, contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that will now been sent to the House of Lords, is an extension of the 28 day rule that was passed in the Terrorism Act 2006 and is the latest step in the wave of anti-terrorism laws causing widespread debate all across the country.

This overhaul of counter-terrorism laws started in 2000 where a basic 48-hour detention, expandable to seven days with the permission of the courts, was introduced. This was then doubled to 14 days in 2003 and then increased once again to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006. That four-week limit came after former Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days with and the revised limit was seen as a fair compromise between the protection of one’s liberty, and the protection of others. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown initially mentioned extending the limit to 56 days near the beginning of his Premiership but later settled on the 42 day limit which we now see taking steps to becoming legislation.

This raises an obvious question as to why the ever extending detention limit needs yet another increase.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith both claimed there may be occasions when the police needed a lot longer to hold a terrorism suspect before they could bring a charge for a specific crime because of the "scale and complexity" of a threat. A yet there have only been a few situations where the 28 day limit has come near to running out with there being only five cases which have some down to the wire. This would seem to suggest that such an increase as we have seen is be no means necessary regardless of what the powers that be would have us believe.

One does not mean to suggest that I am against the punishment of terrorists or the protection of the ‘innocent’ people that feel their wrath, but this 42 day rule is not about punishing terrorists, it is merely about punishing possible terrorists. The difference may, on first glance, seem small as many would argue that prevention is cheaper than the cure. However, one has to ask who or what is a terrorist? Are they people who threaten lives? Or liberties? If it is the latter and it is the idea of attacking the liberties that make them public enemy number one, would this not bring the government itself into the bracket of terrorist and therefore open to 42 days detention without charge? How would Gordon Brown like his new law then? Maybe it or time this government stopped looking at the law affecting the guilty, but how it affects the innocent. In the idea of detention without charge the possibility of miscarriages of justice increases greatly. Whilst a successful conviction enabled by the detention of the suspect for a large amount of time may be seen as a victory for the government, if not for everyone in this country, what do we do if the detained suspect is in fact innocent? Do we then turn around pat the individual on the back and say ‘Awfully sorry old chap, got the wrong end of the stick. No hard feelings?’ and hope they laugh a little and move on, joking to his friends and family about his little run in with the law down his local pub? Some how I doubt such an error will be greeted with such humour. Here we can see the major injustice of such a law, an injustice which was meant to be avoided with the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

It is could be said that rebel Labour bank bencher Dianne Abbot, one of the thirty six Labour MP’s to vote against the bill, had it right when she suggested that the move taken by the Cabinet was not so much about improving a faulty law, but a matter of political point scoring with the cabinet eager to show themselves as ‘tough on terror’ with the Conservative party being shown to take a far more softer line when it came to terrorism. This can, in part be backed up by the view taken by Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg who took the view that this Bill will never become law. He took the view that the proposed Bill will not pass through the House of Lords, where Labour do not hold a majority, and even if it did there would be an inevitable conflict in the European Court of Human Rights where is could be argued that such a detention without charge was against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which suggests that as a bare minimum the accused individual should be informed of the charges against them ‘promptly’. Although, this phase is by no means specific, one could quite easily argue that 42 days is anything but prompt. Is it that we see with this Bill Gordon Brown fighting against the ghost of his predecessor, keen to succeed where Blair failed regardless of the cost or long term damage to his reputation? With the economy sinking away from the apparent golden age that was Tony Blair’s Premiership, if only in an economic sense, this Bill could be said to illustrate that Brown is an improvement on Tony Blair by being able to succeed where his precursor had failed.

However, the resignation of David Davis may have given Gordon Brown the smoke cover he needs to survive and recover from this very weak political position. With thirty six rebel MPs the Bill’s success came down to the votes of nine DUP members proving crucial. Amid claims of political bribery in what appears to be a ‘win at all costs’ situation the principled stance taken Mr Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, appears to have taken focus of the desperate Prime Minister and onto himself. Despite DUP ministers saying that they voted on ‘national security grounds’ the general consensus, aired in the House of commons after the vote was heard, was that their votes came at a price to our leader.

And yet, one must look at the move taken by Mr Davis and all but admire it. Although it is fair to say that the move has put the former Tory front bencher’s career at risk in forcing a by-election in his East Yorkshire constituency, given the lack of competition that appears to be putting their hat in the ring the risk seems more calculated. Whilst it is possible that he will lose his position in the shadow cabinet Mr Davis appears to have offered a slap in the face of Gordon Brown whilst also standing a large chance of retaining his seat in the House of Commons. With the Liberal Democrats declining the chance to stand in the election, hosted in a constituency that was a main target for the party during 2005, it looks like the challenge for the seat will come down to Davis and the Labour Party with the main issue, of course, being the 42 day rule. In a move which has been described as a purely ‘personal decision’ by Conservative Party Leader David Cameron, Davis has taken an unprecedented move by putting his principles about the need for the protection of individual liberties before letting a law, which and uncertain future, pass by without notice. Is this a sign of the personal rather than party politics beginning to grasp the political world? With one man attempting to show that anything Tony Blair can do he can do better, and another risking his political future in an attempt to make a ‘stand’ against the erosion of civil liberties. Such a stand will turn what is a by-election in to an opinion poll over the detention extension, with Davis sitting in the Blue corner firmly against such a law, and Labour sitting in the red corner crying yes, where it looks like they will be joined by Sun newspaper editor Cameron McKenzie, a supporter of the 42 day rule. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only add fuel to what Labour have called a stunt, whilst also splitting any yes votes between them, giving Davis two weak opponents, rather than one strong one, where two right wing candidates will argue for votes whilst agreeing in theory and Mr Davis will appear the only candidate thinking logically over the matter. Surely for the government to win the one topic election they need to fight from a position of strength, a position which that do not possess in national government, never mind in the locality. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only succeed in making a weak position weaker and merely help Mr Davis and the Conservative party to a huge victory over the government. Such a victory that means more than one seat in parliament, but can be seen as gauging true public opinion away from the opinion polls that Gordon Brown relied on so much in the reasoning for the introduction of the Bill.

With the topic to form the focus of debate though out the run up to the by-election and beyond it seems to say that such a victory for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party is all but concrete, with a defeat in the by-election likely and support for his policies thinning by the day, Gordon Brown may want to enjoy his time in Number 10, whilst painting the walls nice shade of blue..

Rent Increase for Campus Businesses

2008-06-16T00:04:00.001Z

We have recently been informed that the rent paid by the independent retail units on campus are to double in the very near future which could see an end to the world of the cheap takeaway that is currently available to campus dwellers.

Businesses such as Pizzetta Rebuplica and the Fish and Chip shop are soon to see their rents increase by more then 100% in the next step of the university master plan which is currently being undertaken by the powers that be in a move that is said to be making the chargers more representative of the so called lucrative position enjoyed by the independent retailers on campus.

Many of the leases extended to the businesses ran out at the end of December 2007 and the University management have employed a third party to calculate the rent that should be paid by each individual company based on the size of the unit occupied and the location of the business on campus. The on going negotiations between the lease holders and this third party, believed to be based in Manchester has led to constant renewals of short term leases, with the relevant legal costs being covered by the small business and not the University, and a great deal of uncertainty as to the future of the businesses on campus.

Whilst it is unsure of the impact such an increase in the rent will have on the prices charged by each individual outlet yet one can safely assume that the increase will be noticeable (not sure about the wording perhaps too ambiguous and not definitive enough). A 100% increase in costs will logically lead to an increase in prices of more than 100% (given the probable decrease in demand) if the same profit margin was to be kept.

This raises the question over who really loses out in all of this. The University? Surely not as there will be replacement businesses to fill in the holes left by the current occupants of the campus world, with the introduction of chains being a large possibility given the high charges that are being asked for. The individual retailers? Well, partially. Although the increase in costs is obviously undesirable an increase in prices will go some way to keep each business at the same level as they have been in the past, if even slightly lower. The students? Now I think we have got it! An increase in rent will lead to an increase in the prices paid by every student who uses an outlet on campus. Given the low income of some students and the ever-rising rent of on-campus accommodation and an increase in tuition fees it would appear that campus living is becoming a virtue only made available to those who have not fallen far from the money tree. One would question the University management’s logic in out pricing the university campus when compared to the easily accessible more affordable accommodation and outlets in the city centre and around it.

Whilst the full impact of increased costs of on campus living one can logically assume that the expense to the students will only increase. Take away anyone? No, I think I’ll stay in and cook.

Independents Day – A Follow Up

2008-06-10T11:27:00.001Z

Following an article I wrote on the closure of the Innovation and Enterprise Unit, entitled ‘Independent’s Day’, I manages to track down two members of staff from that department to see if they wished to give me their opinions on the university’s decision.

Robbie Smith graduated from the old Independent studies department, now the Innovation and Enterprise Unit, in 1988 and began teaching there in 1994. Davey Garland also did an Independent Studies degree after being recruited from Ruskin College Oxford where he was doing a foundation degree. He has been a member of staff since 2001. The Independent Studies Department started life back in 1973 and changed its name to the Innovation and Enterprise Unit at the beginning of the century is set to end its life at Lancaster University at the end of the academic year due to a continuing decrease in numbers over the last few years.

Both Robbie and Davey expressed their dismay at the University’s decision saying that the University have chosen not to use the full potential of the department and seemed to basing their decisions on fiscal grounds. Though, one has to question how successful a department can realistically be if they are denied the opportunity to recruit through the UCAS system which was described by Robbie as ‘Not the healthiest way to recruit students’ with Davey saying ‘If you don’t go out and recruit from feeder colleges like I was or go to UCAS and are restrained to recruit within a university you’re hands are tied and you will go down.’ Robbie was quick to add that it is no guarantee that being allowed to recruit the conventional way would have provided the boost to numbers that is desired by those higher up in University management but there would have been the potential to do so and it seems that, logically speaking, this option should come before any closure of a department.

The two members of staff were concerned with the impact the closure would have on the ‘non-traditional’ students that are in the University. The closure of the department ends its focus on active learning and developing the skills of critical reflection upon one's learning, the department also used alternative formats to give those students who found the fundamentals of essay writing difficult to grasp another way to present their work. This would seem to be a move away from the idea of all inclusive learning that we hear the government harking on about and a move towards a one-size fits all university education. Davey said that this move will add more pressure on those non-traditional learners and eventually something will break, if it has not done so already. It appears that the department could have been used to allow those non-traditional students who found the standard black and white degree scheme a challenge, almost as if it was acting as a safety net to catch those that the system was failing. It was also suggested that an alternative to a two or three module part one system, where all the modules are kept within individual departments, could be to say that all students do a module similar to those taught by the Innovation and Enterprise Unit and do two modules in other departments as they wish. This would allow all students to improve their study and research skills benefiting both the students and the University as a whole.

Robbie finished the interview with a final comment in reference to the department as a whole: ‘Doesn’t that sound like something that would attract students to the university and possibly even a money spinner. This is an alternative vision that the university has chosen not to explore.’

There appears to have been a narrow view of the situation taken by the university’s management when it comes to the Innovation and Enterprise Unit. Setting recruitment targets without letting them compete with the bigger departments within the University is similar to being asked to unlock a door with the wrong key. Whilst it is as yet unclear what affect the closure of the department will have, especially on those non-traditional learners Davey mentioned, but what does seem clear is that the University could have used the department to complement other departments to the advantage of the university, but more importantly the students.

Independents Day

2008-06-07T22:50:00.000Z

It has come to our attention that a proposal is being put forward to close the Department of Innovation and Enterprise. Should the proposal be passed it would see the end of the Part 2 degree scheme that is currently in place, with Part 1 still being available in the Department of Continuing Education.

Frank Dawes, a spokesperson for the Department, said the decision had been taken due to the decreasing number of students over the last few years enrolling in the unique courses offered by the department, such as ‘Political Hollywood’, and with the disappearing free choice module which is traditionally available the first years these numbers were not seen as likely to increase. Nr Dawes said the ‘degree scheme was from a different era and its time had come to an end’.

The Independent degree scheme was founded in 1973 with the idea to “make the individual student a producer of his own curriculum rather than a consumer of one designed for students in general”. This unique idea provided a welcome break from the other black and white degrees at the time allowing a student to research an area which they found particularly interesting, as opposed to the areas decided upon by the specific department or school. The course was not only unique in its make-up, but also in its teaching method. Whilst the traditional degree schemes involved lectures and exams Independent Studies had, and still does to this day, promoted research based work in a format that was completely coursework assessed. The department also made great emphasis on the use of alternative formats for coursework, taking a preference to presentations, be it through power point or a film, as opposed to the standard essay.

However as the black and white departments or schools moved towards the multi-coloured rainbow that is independent learning the departments days were numbered and, it appears, have now come to an end. Many of the courses that were first pioneered by the Department of Innovation and Enterprise are going to be available in different departments around the university, but it is a fond farewell to the trailblazers of independent learning in Lancaster University.

Guilty or Not Innocent? - How Far Can it be Said That the Trails of the Hollywood Ten Were a Farce?

2007-10-25T19:14:00.000Z

Introduction

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"[i] This is the question put to all the suspected communists that were called in front of the House on Un-American Activities Committee. The question may seem to have a simple yes or no answer but the implications could have meant prison. However, which answer gave the better future? Yes? Or was it no? Which would save the accused career? Which would send them to jail and on to an ever growing blacklist?

The House on Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was led by J. Parnell Thomas and was set up to prove two things. Firstly, it wanted to show that the Screen Writer’s Guild had Communist members. And secondly, it wanted to show that these writers had the ability to “insert subversive propaganda into Hollywood films”[ii].

So who were the “Hollywood Ten”? By name they were Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edmund Dmytryk, Ring Larder Jr, John Howard Larson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scot and Dalton Trumbo. All of these men were accused by the HUAC of being communist sympathizers and were sent to jail for a year for contempt of court as J. Parnell Thomas felt they did not answer the questions asked in a proper manner.[iii]

In this essay I will look at why the “Hollywood Ten” did not answer the questions in a simple yes/no manner and why the HUAC was asking the questions. Was it an attempt to clam down on communism in Hollywood films or was there a deeper intention.

“Answer Yes or No”

“Answer yes or no” was the demand from the bench of the HUAC when the accused fought against the questions put to them. However, which answer is the lesser of two evils? As shown in “The Hollywood Ten” [iv] neither answer was better than the other. If you answered “yes” then you would lose your job and face a jail sentence, along with demands to name others who were at the meetings. Answer “no”, and you were accused of perjury and threatened with professional witnesses who would testify against you, such as Whittaker Chambers. This was referred to by John Howard Lawson as “Government by Stoolpigeon”[v]. So through either answer, prison was your final destination. This was well summed up by Lester Cole when he said, “You’re dammed if you do, you’re dammed if you don’t”.[vi]

There is, however, another reply to the HUAC’s questions. This defense was given by the America Constitution and was the option used by each of the “Hollywood Ten”. This answer was to plead the first and fifth amendment of the American Constitution. The First Amendment gave all American citizens the right to freedom of speech and assembly whilst the Fifth Amendment allows the American Citizens the right to a secret ballot. This means an American court is unable to ask someone about their political leanings or personal beliefs. Both of these amendments are infringed by the HUAC questions and therefore do not have to be answered.

However, the third option also failed in keeping the defendants out of jail as they were arrested under J. Parnell Thomas’ command for contempt of court and sentenced to a year in jail. This was the actual charge which sent the ten to jail. Therefore, the HUAC was ignoring the rights given to the American people by the American Constitution.

As I have explained all three possible answers result in jail, so which answer was best? Which one helped you avoid jail? The answer would appear neither. To admit the charges would result in a loss of employment and a jail sentence, to deny the charges would result in a charge of perjury and to challenge the right to ask the questions led to a charge of contempt of court.

How, then, could you avoid jail? There was one way to avoid jail and the blacklist of the 1950’s. This was, as John Howard Lawson put it, “to become a government stoolpigeon”. This was to become a professional witness for the state, testifying against other people accused of being communist sympathizers. This was the option chosen by some of the people subpoenaed by the HUAC, for example Whittaker Chambers and Lloyd Bridges. However, this option still had an impact on the career of those who chose this path. By confessing against others to save their own backs “stoolpigeons” were extradited by the film community. This can be seen in the career of Lloyd Bridges who chose to become an FBI informant. Before his hearing in front of the HUAC Lloyd Bridges he was an actor with Columbia pictures. An illustration of his success would be the making of 30 films in which he stared between 1941 and 1942.[vii] However, after helping the FBI with their enquiries into various other Hollywood personnel Bridges was caused to star in various low-budget movies such as “The Limping Man" (1953), whereas had Bridges not helped the FBI it is fair to assume that he would have been blacklisted like the “Hollywood Ten” but after the fall of McCarthy it is likely he would have starred in higher quality movies.. This fall from grace for Bridges can be summed up in his appearance as the Deputy in “High Noon”[viii]. In this film the deputy worked as a spy, so to speak, for the sheriff. Is this a representation of how Bridges was viewed by Hollywood? A spy for the authorities? By cooperating with the FBI Bridges managed to avoid jail. However, this had a negative impact on his career. Lloyd Bridges is an example of how taking the option to clear your name may still damage your career because you may become resented by your peers, limiting the employment opportunities handed to you.. For this reason I would go as far to say that there was no answer that could be given to the HUAC which did not have negative effects.

Does this make the trials a farce?

What Was the Purpose of the HUAC Hearings?

Before we decide whether or not the HUAC hearings were a farce it is important for us first to decide what the purposes of the hearings were. Were they intended on finding communists inside the American film industry? Or were the hearings a means to entertain the media and about presenting an image of the American government?

It is possible that the purpose of the hearings is a straight forward as it appears. To hunt out communist sympathizers and that the hearings were only brought against those with which there was enough evidence to convict them. That would explain why neither a yes or no answer avoided a jail sentence.

However, the problem with this argument is the afore mentioned third answer to the HUAC’s questions. The American Constitution should have guaranteed all of the defendants their freedom under the First Amendment[ix]. However, this defense also ended in a jail sentence because the committee had you sent to jail for contempt of court.. Therefore I believe that there was more to the hearings then would seem at a first glance and I believe this is to do with the large amount of media attention. We can see from the original footage of the HUAC hearings that there was a large amount of media attention.[x] I think this is due to what was happening at the time of the hearings because at the beginning of the 1950’s America had just entered into the cold war against the Soviet Union. It is possible, as Paul J. Achter suggests[xi], that through the use of the media McCarthy was controlling the public’s impressions of the threat of communism. Through the use of the media McCarthy was able to show that communism was already in America and that it was a threat to the country. By doing this McCarthy was doing one of two things. One, he was causing the public to dislike communism and support the effort against its spread around the world. Also, he showed that the government as doing something to combat communism in America, gaining support for the administration.

This argument would then suggest that the hearings held by the HUAC were a media show rather than fair trials. If this is so the hearings can be seen as a farce because the hearings were not about who was or was not a communist. They were about illustrating that communism does exist. McCarthy was, to put it another way, causing the public to believe in the devil by showing that the devil exists. This would mean that the “Hollywood Ten” were the casualties of a media show which would cause them to lose their jobs and spend a year in jail[xii].

The final reason for the large media coverage of the HUAC hearings, one which is far more beneficial to Senator McCarthy. Through the wide coverage of the trials McCarthy was able to install fear into the American public. This fear is created by the illustration of communism on American soil. The fear is vital to the McCarthyism movement. Through this fear those who did not agree with the movement were too scared to openly oppose it. As everyone was too scared to oppose the movement Senator McCarthy and the HUAC hearings were able to dispense ‘justice’ on who ever they saw fit. This was commented on by Edward R. Murrow when he said that Senator McCarthy believes that “Anyone who criticizes or opposes Senator’s McCarthy’s methods must be a communist”[xiii]. This blanket policy used by McCarthy installed fear into the American public because everyone wanted to avoid the wrath of the HUAC hearings. The media coverage of the hearings helped install this fear due to the nationwide broadcasts. This gave McCarthy the ability to ‘name and shame’ people he believed to be communists to the entire country; this gave the accused no hiding place from the fallout caused from such an accusation[xiv].

Conclusion

Regardless of the answer given to the HUAC’s leading question all those who appeared at the hearings damaged their career. Be it through prison sentence or through the loss of respect from their peers. However, does this make the hearings a farce?

On the face of it the hearings do appear a farce. If the accused followed the instructions given by the chair of the committee, J. Parnell Thomas,[xv] and answer the questions in a “yes” or “no” style prison was always going to be their final destination. If they answered “yes”, they were admitting to being a communist and were, in accordance to Senator McCarthy’s claims, a security risk. They were put in prison as a matter of national safety. If they were to answer “no” to the questions, then they were sent to jail for perjury. If they, like the “Hollywood Ten” answered by referring to the American Constitution they were sent to jail for contempt of court. This makes the hearings a farce because no ‘justice’ was delivered.

However, this depends on what you see as the purpose of the HUAC hearings. If you see them as a trail meant to dispense ‘justice’ then the hearing was indeed a farce as the judge had passed sentence long before the court had convened. However, if you see them as a tool to gaining information about who may be involved in communist activities then the hearings may not be seen as a farce. If the hearings set out to gain insider information then they did succeed as people such as Whittaker Chambers and Lloyd Bridges gave in to the pressure heaped on them by the HUAC and became FBI informants.

The hearings may also not be seen as a farce if they were purely a media show to control the public’s view of communism and to portray it in such a way it is seen as the enemy of the state or to simply scare the public into submission. This does not make the hearings a farce because the hearings did spread fear throughout the American nation. Edward R. Murrow once said, in reference to the American people, “We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason.”[xvi] It is possible, and in my opinion probably, that the hearings were carried out as a mechanism, through the use of the media, to scare the American public to the extent of which they no longer questioned the decisions made by the board and Senator Joseph R McCarthy.

Therefore, for the reasons listed above, I do not believe that the trials of the “Hollywood Ten” because the hearings were not trials. They were a media show put on to influence public opinion of communism.

[i] Ronald Bergan The Guardian Saturday November 4, 2000 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4086011,00.html
[ii] http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/huac.htm
[iii] The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
[iv] See Above
[v] See Above
[vi] See Above
[vii] http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/fulldetail/id/199321
[viii] Fred Zinnemman High Noon 1952
[ix] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
[x] The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
[xi] Paul J. Achter TV, technology, and McCarthyism: crafting the democratic renaissance in an age of fear Routledge 2004
[xii] See Above
[xiii] Edward R Murrow George Clooney Good Night, and Good Luck 2005
[xiv] Paul J. Achter TV, technology, and McCarthyism: crafting the democratic renaissance in an age of fear Routledge 2004
[xv] The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
[xvi] Edward R Murrow http://quotations.home.worldnet.att.net/edwardrmurrow.html

Bibliography

Ronald Bergan ‘Ring Lardner Jr’ The Guardian Saturday November 4th 2000
www.moderntimes.com/Archive/Article/0,4273,4086011,00.html
The Hollywood Ten The Film Division of the Southern California Chapter, National Council of the Arts, Sciences and Professions 1950
www.hollywood.com/celebs/fulldetail/id/199321
Paul J. Achter TV, technology, and McCarthyism: crafting the democratic renaissance in an age of fear Routledge 2004
George Clooney Good Night, and Good Luck 2005
http://quotations.home.worldnet.att.net/edwardrmurrow.html
Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner ‘Radical Hollywood’ The New Press New York 2002
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Options, Options, Options

2007-09-18T00:01:00.000Z

The new academic year has started a bang with Intro week bringing the end of the summer holidays and the start of the academic year together in one big party. However, among the late nights and drunken parties many new Lancaster first year students can be forgiven for forgetting that they do have a decision to make. What to take as that elusive third option?

As returning students will know during the first year students usually take up and extra module alongside those of their major subject, giving them both a major and a minor. The idea of this set up is to give students the opportunity to study something else that they are interested in but do not want to take as a full degree. Although some departments dislike this set up preferring their students to focus on their major and seeing a minor subject as nothing more than a distraction wasting time that, in their view, could be better spent on the ‘more important’ coursework assignments or revising for those end of year exams that seem to be ever looming, it has to be said that the minor subject does serve a purpose. As I said before it offers students a chance to study another area of interest other than that of their major. However, this has a greater effect than it is often given credit for as the minor can offer a ‘Get Out of Jail’ free card should results not go the way you had planned. To pass your first year you usually must attain 45% in all major modules and 40 in all minor modules. (The lower pass mark can make it seem less important, but you do still need to pass). However, should things go wrong for whatever reason and your marks for your major fall the wrong side of that magical pass mark it is possible to swap majors so you would take up your minor subject (assuming you passed that) as your major for years two and three.

The minor, however, can have more of a purpose than helping you out of a tight spot. If the right option is chosen it could help improve your major subjects mark. This could be done in two ways. Firstly, you could choose subjects that are similar and may at time overlap with your major so that you attain a wider and more in depth knowledge of the broader topic. This may enable you to add extra depth to your coursework essays enabling you to get over that 45% mark and on to the promised land of Part II. Secondly, you could choose subjects like Independent Studies or Creative Writing that enable you to look at whichever area you want while help you improve your essay writing skills and throw the use of alternative formats (presentations, filming etc) give you the skills to score high marks all over the board when it comes to your major.

Time commitment is another big factor when choosing your minor. Although you may be entering first year, and everyone tells you ‘First year doesn’t matter’ you will still have work to do and exams to revise for. You have to be careful not to overload your week with so much work that you miss out on the all important social side of student life. Look at the way your major is assessed and try and use your minor to fill in the gaps. So if your major is all assessed by end of year exams it may be a good idea to choose a minor which is more coursework based, this would lower your workload when exam time comes around enabling you to focus more time on passing your major exams.

There is no right or wrong subject to choose as a minor, but playing to your strengths is usually the best way to go. Look at how your timetable is set out and see what routes are open to you. But be careful not to find that you have bitten off more than you can chew.

Prices Peek-ed

2007-06-18T15:36:00.000Z

The college bars have been a hot conversation topic lately due to the increase in prices of beers and rumours over their future existence. We have 9 bars, and until relatively recently they were the hive activity with prices cheaper or at least competitive with town. However over the last few years this seems to have greatly changed, with some of the bars becoming almost empty and students taking their custom into the city centre where it is cheaper to have a night out (bus fair included). Lancaster University is part of the NUSSL deal (as is many other universities) which, by its own admission, ‘Create, develop and sustain competitive advantages for member Students’ Unions – reducing costs and maximising commercial revenues’. At present the NUSSL deal is made with Scottish and Newcastle who have taken over from Coors this Easter gone. Naturally bars have to make a profit, and the average (which includes normal high street pubs, clubs and university bars) is between 40 and 60 percent. However (another word) unlike other bars it seems that here we have broken the national norm unless you are a London nightclub such as ‘String fellows’, having a 65% profit margin, though David Peaks who is Commercial Director for Conferences and Catering and his colleague in crime Ted Gaskill who is ‘adviser’ to bars looking for a 70 percent profit, i.e. normal pint of beer might cost you an eventual £2.70. To quote someone who works behind one of the college bars:

‘The bars are set up to fail’…‘the 65% desired gross profit is an unachievable amount ‘.

Our source, who wishes to remain anonymous, claimed that David Peaks, who had set the 65% target, wanted the bars to fail, so they could take them over on the pretence that they would do a better job than the current licensees. (He has made this clear to others on numerous occasions) ‘The Bars make money, Catering don’t. They have lost the Fresher’s Ball and Graduation Ball; they need the bars to break even’. We are in no position to say whether this is indeed the case but by looking at Mr Peaks own figures this could be a logical deduction. Mr Peaks new target for bar sales is a 70% gross profit margin on drink sales and 23% on food sales to fit in with his ‘industry standard’. However, I would question his reasoning behind the industry standard of only 23% profit on food. From my experience I would suggest that pubs put a higher mark-up on food than they do on drinks. Could it be that the target for his department is so low in an attempt to make his department look successful and the bars failing?

Our sources went on to say that had Mr Peaks done his research he would have realised that his target is unreasonable taken the products they were trying to sell and the industry standard in this area. ‘Real Ale is a high waste product. Although profit can be made, 65% profit is unachievable. No pub in the town centre achieves this amount of profit, why should we?’ Having gone around the local pubs in town taking a broad cross section we found that none reached a 65%, with more often than not achieving no more than 55%.

With the recent decision to cancel the a long established university event: the Grad Bar Beer Festival, due to the inability to reach the target set, what can we see in the future from the on-campus bars? With the priority being lots of money over lots of sales it would seem logical that it is all downhill from here. One would assume that Furness Beer Festival will follow Graduate out of the door leaving Campus with no Real Ale events at all. Are we to see Catering succeed in their quest to take control of the bars and run them in the same style as their other establishments – i.e. at a loss. With a member of the Catering staff already the license holder for Lonsdale and Pendle bars, is this a matter of two down seven to go? Will Mr Peaks achieve his goal of closing six of the on campus bars? The college bars are key to life at Lancaster University; they are the social centres that make the collegiate system add something special to the Lancaster experience. I am sure we all remember the uproar that was caused when Pendle Bar, ‘the flagship of failing bars’ was put under threat; it now appears that this was merely the tip of the iceberg. We must also ask the question of what kind of bars would Mr Peak run? We only have to look at the catering establishment to get a rough idea, i.e., lack of possible quality and good service. Talking to one former Venue employee, they stated that the establishment had always asked for decent coffee and other beverage supplies but got it seemed the most basic and cheapest, though with the price you would never have believed so. Similarly as we have seen with the bars, Mr Peaks is not known for his communication and accountability skills or his grass-roots knowledge of the industry as this particular sources describes: “I recall when the manager was away on holiday, and Peaks just came down and totally altered the layout behind the bar, with the large soup bowl moved to right next the counter, making it a public health hazard. Apart from totally not consulting the boss, my estimation of his catering knowledge, was like putting a chimpanzee in charge of number 9 bus, i.e. its going to bloody well crash!!’

Which such management tom-foolery, misinformation and secret agendas, then it is surprising that Mr Peaks has lasted nearly 8 or 9 years, and no one has exposed these antics properly before. What is more worrying is that a man earning £60,000 a year is not just taking the university down the swany and possibly lining his own pocket on the bonuses he makes, but that he has seem to have sweat talked the Vice Chancellor into accepting his advice.

To put some meat on this story, then we decided to investigate a little more. Mr Peaks talks a lot about the ‘industry standard’ when he is talking about how much to charge in the bars so we carried out some research into other Universities which are part of the NUSSL deal and the price and profit margins for bars in Lancaster. St Martins College in Lancaster sells a pint of Tetley’s at £1.60 as opposed to our £1.90, a mark up of only 61.8%. Taken into account the average cost of a pint of ale in a normal town pub in this area is £2.30, St Martins seem to be benefiting from the NUSSL deal as there drinks are cheaper on campus. We also looked at the price of Tetley’s at Durham University, which also has a collegiate set up so is a fair comparison for our University. To our amazement, the charge for a pint of Tetley’s was a mere £1.45. A mark up of only 57.9% and a full one pound cheaper than the drinks in the city centre. Both these Universities are benefiting from the NUSSL deal as they are able to compete with the bars in their respective town centres. Why is it that we are expected to pay more than the students of these Universities for the same product? And why is it that someone with Mr Peaks business background can not see that such a high mark up is defeating the point of the NUSSL deal?

To sum up, someone (i.e. this University) is being taken for a fool, the staff see it, the students see it, the principles are aware of it, it seems that those who employ Mr Peaks and are maintaining the 65% are still blind to it. As one student commented ‘I would not trust Peaks or that other one who does university hostilities (hospitality) with him [Ted Gaskil] to run a bath/raffle (other simple task requiring low levels of judgement).’ It would seem an undesirable future, yet one we are moving towards with great speed.

I would like to point out that Mr Peaks was contacted on a number of occasions on this issue to ask his opinion on the bars situation and he felt that, and I quote, ‘it is inappropriate for me to comment’. May his silence on the issue say more than words could ever do.

Disaster in Denmark

2007-05-22T10:36:00.000Z

Going abroad alone is a daunting task for any student wanting to go out and see the world for themselves, be in for a weekend in Paris or for a week in New York. Now imagine you were fortunate enough to go as part of your degree on the ERASMUS scheme. For a 3 month period students on various courses are given the chance to go around the world, partly to study, but partly to experience a different culture without the tourist rose-tinted glasses. For those more adventurous of you this might sound like a chance in a lifetime, one to be grabbed and like that first pint after the day from hell.

However, imagine if you went abroad and found that grant you were promised never arrived? As appealing now? Our sources in Denmark tell us that the grant that was supposed to help students fund themselves in an alien country has yet to arrive despite the students being out there for over a month.

The students were supposed to be receiving a grant of £878 to help cover flights and living costs. However, this grant is nowhere to be seen. The stranded students were promised the money would be in their accounts at the latest by 7th May despite originally being told that they would receive the money before they left the country. The money is likely to be delayed even longer because the 7th May is in fact a bank holiday so no money shall be transferred, thus prolonging the students’ strife.

“It’s ridiculous to the point of offensive,” one student, who wishes to remain anonymous, told us. “Covering costs is hard enough sometimes at home with a student loan and overdraft. When you’re trying to that going at home, and in an expensive foreign country know that there’s money you were promised SOMEWHERE, possibly gathering interest in the university’s account, it just makes you angry.”

The student told us that it was ‘ridiculous financial mismanagement’ whilst continuously cursing those delaying the transfer of the money. Denmark’s economy means wages are higher than in England and thus prices can be standardised to that, meaning higher prices for simple commodities. This makes the money students are owed even more essential.

“It would have been better if they were straight with us from the start, saying the money could be up to a month late,” our anonymous student told us, “then we could have made financial arrangements at home. These are impossible to do here as banks like NatWest and HSBC have no partner banks in Denmark.”

Concerns may arise for future groups of students heading abroad. With tuition fees rising, it is possible that such money would become more necessary than ever to those students wishing to spend a summer in Denmark, or even a year in partner universities in North America or Australasia. With the increasing dependence on student loans and the like one must look at the students’ welfare if this financial support fails to materialise. In attempts to save money it is logical to think that corners will be cut, and unless the issue is solved soon a meal that would have been a square, may become a perfect circle.

“It’s just not good enough. It’s not like I want the money for beer, I need it for food and rent too,” our exasperated student concluded.

Procrastination for the nation: The Tardis of the Mind and thinking out of the bubble

2007-05-06T13:54:00.000Z

Imagine yourself lying flat on your back on your bed, staring from the ceiling to the cascade of paper covering your floor, wondering what to do with your life and feeling lost. As you sit thinking about the looming examination season, you try to get that echo of your parents’ voices and the student version of ‘I will survive’ to exit your skull and stop jiggling around in there messing the other stuff up. But what then? What do you do? Procrastination for the nation? After all, its exam season.

Flick back to reality. That fifty-something on the radio is whining about lazy students and their general uselessness to society. What a way to make you feel better about yourself. Back in your dream world, you wonder whether this time wasting, sun worshipping, roof-sitting, fantasy-barbecue strain of the study avoidance plague is an age old problem or a deepening national crisis.

So, now you have a very clear picture firmly fixed in your head of all the things you could or should be doing about now, or worse, should have done last week. The chances are you’re starting to feel the panic rising inside you. So take a minute or so to lengthen this dream. You’ve wasted enough time, what difference will a few moments more make? Take a little trip Dr Who style (if he can do it so can you) back in time, 30 years or so. Picture your flat mate, an eighteen year old James May, pondering his future, dreaming of the Lotus Espirit he saw at the ‘flicks’, and KITT from Night Rider, while elaborately etching his name into the walls of room 97 of the then Pendle College. The little bubble world of campus is a different place. Bucks Fizz are playing on the radio and are still cool. (The Camera Never Lies don’t you know?) Bowland and Lonsdale are like peas in a pod, you can wave or otherwise make rude gestures from one window to another. Cartmel’s now seasoned freshers are plotting new acts of sabotage for County’s tree. Alexandra Park and the advent of the En-suite bedroom are but elements in a far-fetched and distant dream.

If, like James, you had your dream job for which you get to drive, race and generally smash up the best cars of the moment, while meeting all kinds of celebrities and encouraging them to do the same, I’d guess you’d be pretty happy with the career side of your life. But, the stories James tells at dinner parties do not only involve Ellen McArthur and Chris Evans and their adventures on the race-track. Oh no, they stem from the best days of his life in good old Lancaster. In passing, he recalls his time here as a right good laugh, ‘If nothing else, it made for a good pool and darts tournament.’ But who wouldn’t want to hear about his Christmas tree-stealing antics, how he first set his kitchen on fire (and how every other kitchen in the block managed to copy the stunt before the end of the year) or how he walked the length of campus on the roof of the spine without touching the floor?

Put yourself in his shoes, in his house. After several glasses of wine, and usually by the time you reach dessert, you relish being able to listen to your guests ‘ooh’ and ‘ahh’ with respect as you detail how you jumped the gap between the roof and the shelters in the square. Oh how they wish that they too had experienced the fun and frolics of Lancaster. That’s just the guests who studied elsewhere, more impressed and envious are those who didn’t go to university and missed out on the crazy days of ‘study.’

James is a self-confessed under-achiever, but one day he sat at his desk answering his emails and one stood out. It was an email from a current student at Lancaster, who has aspirations of becoming a journalist. He learns that although his own college has long been flattened, moved and replaced, that this young student is currently camped out in new ‘Cartmel’ because this year it is the turn of Grizedale College (his former rival) to be homeless. For posterity’s sake, he took his own little trip down memory lane, and dutifully regurgitated his tales of colleges, cars, Christmas trees, kitchens, thefts, nights out, and artistic etchings. But there was one other thing he couldn’t resist sharing in that beautifully individual way of his; his advice to anyone wanting to be a journalist: ‘Only do it if you can’t get a proper job!’

With, as he says, Lancaster looking more and more like a ‘landed space station,’ (with which the only fault he can remember is its peculiar smell of brick dust) cut away from the outside world it is very easy to loose sight of where you hope you are going in life. As you while away the hours avoiding study, no-one will notice you in your Tardis of a mind, exploring the lives of the rich and famous that walked where you walked, and wondered as you wondered. Comfort yourself that all is not lost, and that the sun will rise another day as your life emerges, the product of a bit of work and a lot of play. Think of those who lay on that bed before you looking at the ceiling and their mass of paper, and see what they have become. Take a lesson from the students of old, who we are told were ‘simple and unsophisticated’, and forget about the future for a minute or two. Look at what is in front of you, and embrace it with open arms.

Jonathan Starr and Katherine Gledhill

Universities Gone Mad!

2007-05-04T16:34:00.000Z

Exams are a stressful feature of every student’s life. Going over notes, mind maps and frantically reading through textbooks making sure you are as prepared as you can be for the challenge that lies ahead.

However, it is all very good you being prepared for your exams, but what if the University are not?

Work is just about to start on the new Grizedale accommodation at Lancaster University. Although it is good to see that work is beginning on the pile of rubble that has sat in wait since the beginning to the academic year it has come to many people’s attention that it seems illogical to start this major building work right as a ‘Quiet Period’ has been put into force around the campus. Why are diggers allowed to make excessive noise, and yet students get told off by the porters for having a small game of football?

It would appear that this university has not thought about its students and the effect such a noise disruption will have on their revision and ultimately their final grades. One postgraduate student commented; “When will the University start to think of its students, its customers? I mean undergraduates go home in June, we have to suffer this right through the summer, and previous experience shows that even though we pay huge amounts of money for MA’s, our dissertation writing time is destroyed through excessive building noise or just plain bloody inconsideration”.

However, it is not our own University which seems to have lost all sight of their students. It was announced recently that the students of Manchester Metropolitan Business School. Are to sit their exams, that had been scheduled to take place in a conference room in the City of Manchester Stadium, will in fact be situated in a large marquee in a car park next to one of Manchester’s busiest roads. A student of the business school told me that he was ‘Outraged at the situation’ and that the idea of taking exams in a tent was ‘a joke’. The clear message from the students was that no one was laughing.

Just imagine it. All the hours spent in lectures, all the time spent reading through textbooks and the abundant note taking all building up to those end of year exams only for a lorry to roar its engine and you’ve lost your train of thought mid-sentence. One can not specifically say the effect that such a disruption will have on any student but it is clear that such an interruption will only have a negative effect on the final result.

The purpose of Universities is to create an atmosphere where students can excel in their chosen area of study and further their academic career. This taken into mind, why does it appear that some universities are not seeking to create this much sought after ambience? It is also noted that neither University had planned for the disruptions to occur. Grizedale College had been planned to be well under way by now and Manchester Met.have fallen on the bad side of a double booking. But even with this taken into account, neither University can seriously expect their students to perform to their full potential under such circumstances. Both Universities have issued their apologies for the disruptions caused to the students during the stressful period, but last time I checked apologies did not help you pass an exam.

Jonathan Starr

Wicked by Name, Wicked by Nature

2007-05-02T12:18:00.000Z

"It was one of those sort of random events that completely change your life," said composer Stephen Schwartz when he was asked about his newest musical ‘Wicked’ which has had a big impact on theatre goers both in the US and in the UK.

‘Wicked’ is a musical with songs by Stephen Schwartz (Godspell and Pippin) and directed by Joe Mantello. Set in the days prior to Dorothy's arrival from Kansas, Wicked explores the idea that the infamous antagonist we call the Wicked Witch of the West was a misconstrued, victimized person. Her alleged wickedness was merely retaliation against a charlatan wizard's corrupt government.

The play is set at Shiz University, the intelligent green-skinned teenager, Elphaba Thropp (the wicked witch of the west in the original ‘Wizard of Oz’), meets beautiful and ambitious Galinda Upland (who changes her name to Glinda during the course of the play and later becomes Glinda the Good) when the two become roommates. Their lives intertwine, and throughout the show their friendship struggles to endure extreme personality differences, opposing viewpoints, rivalry over the same love interest, and of course Elphaba's eventual tragic fall from grace.
‘Wicked’ was opened on Broadway at the George Gershwin Theatre on October 30, 2003 and is loosely based on the best selling novel ‘Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West’ by Gregory Maguire. The musical became so popular that the producers were able to open additional ‘Wicked’ productions in Chicago and a touring company before crossing the Atlantic and opening at the Apollo Victoria Theatre on 27th September 2006. It opens in Los Angeles February 21st this year. There are also plans for the show to open in Japan and Germany before the end of the year and further plans for it to reach the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Since its opening ‘Wicked’ on the West End in September last year the weekly box office gross for the London production is believed to be higher than any other show in West End history.

The development of ‘Wicked’ started around a decade a go when Stephen Schwartz was alerted to the book by a friend whilst on holiday to Hawaii. "It was one of those sort of random events that completely change your life," Schwartz told reporters. The book, he continues "is an incredibly brilliant flash of inspiration - to take the iconic and quintessential villain of American pop culture and decide to look at the story we all know from her point of view." Stephen Schwartz also said what surprises him most about his career so far is "to have been part of two shows that become phenomena - the first show I did, Godspell, and the last show I did, Wicked.”
What’s up next for Schwartz? His new opera ‘Séance on a Wet Afternoon’ is due to open in October of 2009 in Santa Barbara, California.

For more information on the show ‘Wicked’ and how to get tickets go to www.wickedthemusical.co.uk.

The Rise of the Machines

2007-04-27T09:03:00.000Z

If you were walking round Lancaster what do you think would happen?

Little children running around screaming? A business man in a rush as he barges past you? This is what I would expect. I’m sure you can understand my surprise when an elderly man started to talk to me. Shocked by this interesting development in my day I stood and listened to what he had to say. He began to tell me how a friend of his had died from eating too much chocolate. This revelation took me by surprise and I started to envisage some kind off chocolate assassin going round poisoning chocolate bars when no one else was looking. However, as the conversation progressed it became clear that his friend had been a diabetic and had ignored his doctor’s advice of doing things in moderation.

The conversation moved quickly from chocolate related deaths to how the man I was talking to had worked in paper mills and how it had all changed. He told me about how he followed his father into the business and had worked in mills all around the country ranging from Scotland to Wales. The conversation came to an end with him cursing how the rise of technology had changed the world. Admittedly I had thought at this stage that I was stuck in the middle of a revamp of Monty Python’s ‘Four Yorkshire Men Sketch’ and half expected someone to come up behind me and say ‘You thought you had it bad! Back in my day . . . ’

As we parted something the old man had said struck me. Are we really that dependant on technology? I look around my room and I can see many electronic items. My computer, lava lamp, games console, television, desk light, alarm clock, mobile phone and my radio. Eight things in one room. As I think about what the old man said to me I find myself wondering could I go a week, or even a day, without the technology that surrounds me? I would like to say yes, I must be able to and I would guess that the majority of you reading this article would say the same. However, when push comes to shove could we really do it?

Take a minute to consider your answer. No television. No fancy games console or music system. No mobile phones. Do you still think you can do it? Me neither. This poses another question. Are we slaves to technology? Has society changed so much that the power that man has developed over years now depends on whether or not the computer will do what we want it to?

I am not saying that technology, on the whole, is a bad thing. Thanks to technology lives have improved greatly. But where do we draw the line? Where does technology stop being a help and start being a hindrance?

If there is one thing I have learnt about technology over the years is that it inevitably fails. What then? Does the world stop until we are all back online surfing the web or until all our mobiles are charged up? I sit here thinking is the old man right? Are we now so dependant on technology that we are losing the skills our ancestors spent years perfecting?

As I switch off my lava lamp I start to think about the impact technology has had on our society. Technology is everywhere, from the cars we drive to how we communicate. The rise of technology has lead to text messages, instant messaging and face book. Of course all of these can have positive affects on our lives as they shorten distances between one person and another but what about the other side of the coin? The dark side of instant communication? How has technology affected our ability to interact on a face to face basis with fellow human beings? I look at my flat, seeing all the closed doors hiding people away, and yet I can talk to them online. I do not mean to say that when we go out to the bar, for example, we do not sit by ourselves, but next time you are in a social area take a closer look and you can see the separations from one group to the other like the networks on face book or the groups on MSN Messenger.

I will go as far to say that I am the worst culprit for this. This brings me back to the old man from the beginning of my article. We were talking for about fifteen minutes and I don’t know his name, and yet when I look at MSN Messenger I know exactly who ‘A being in search of meaning’ is. As I walked away, checking my mobile for any messages, I couldn’t help but wonder, is this what our society has become.

Jonathan Starr

We’re all Going on a Term-Time Holiday

2007-04-26T22:25:00.000Z

On Tuesday 16th January a large number of staff and students from our university found themselves getting free holidays to various places in Europe. Why? Not a charity giveaway but through a rogue email containing a link into the inner workings of the Ryan Air booking system.

The email found its way to a graduate student in Grizedale College. Not long afterward he was seen running down knocking on all the doors of his corridor shouting and subsequent flats yelling ‘Lets screw the bastards!’ It was not long until the majority of the occupants had booked themselves weekends away to Ireland, France and Spain with the only expense being the time spent deciding where to go. However, Ryan Air’s troubles did not end there as it was not long until the email was passed on to the next flat. And soon, through the power of the Internet a large majority of block 43 were browsing the Ryan Air website deciding where they wanted to go.

However, after deciding that it was cruel not to share this new found opportunity, the message was passed on to the college porters with instructions to pass the information on to security. Whilst this was happening, word was spreading about Ryan Airs problem as the email was being sent to various places around the country one going to Manchester and another getting as far south as Sussex, and to the east at Newcastle. The message was clear – pass it on. It was not long until word was leaving the world of universities as the email was soon sent out to parents who were then instructed to pass the email on to work colleagues. Soon employees of the NHS were asking for holiday leave so they could jet off round Europe for the weekend. This is not to say that the email stayed in this country. A few hours after the email had originally been received it was discovered that it had reached as far as Denmark, where university here invited there friends there to come and visit on the expense of Ryan air. It is unknown how far the email has reached (at the time of writing, 4 hours has expired from initially receiving email) and how many people find themselves on the receiving end of a free holiday.

A simple email has, at time of writing has so far been sent to around a one hundred people with the amount increasing quickly as the word spreads across the university and then all over the country. Between now and the beginning of February Ryan Air will be seeing a lot of students with some connection to Lancaster. (a lot)A day of great joy for members of our university, a day of great misfortune for Ryan Air, and particularly for one for one graduate student who is rubbing his hands with glee at having succeeded in spreading the word so widely.

Jonathan Starr