ter (under an hour's train journey from London) and has been pumping out facts for just over five years. The University is based on the Reith lectures given by its Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Albert Sloman. The one pervading theme of these lectures was that the new University of Essex was to be an integrated community. It was to be a great experiment in liberalism. Essex is different; it is liberal. It has to a large extent dissipated the classic hierarchies of the old universities. But only because its function is not that of these pre-war institutions. Instead of "fully educating' an imperial elite, Essex University is here as the fifth column of a technological society. The University serves to manufacture limited functionaries for that society and to produce the ideological rationalisation which keeps it going.
Vice-Chancellor Sloman's integrated community was one where staff and students should simply be able to co-exist without distinctions. And in fact there are no (formally) segregated common rooms. bars. restaurants. no "staff rooms" and minimal intrusion into the "private life" of students. But behind this seemingly progressive, liberal myth of an integrated university lies a hierarchy that is even more authoritarian than before and an interference with the student's everyday life that breeds even more neurosis than before.
The first crack in the liberal umbrella came in May, 1968. During the academic year 1967/8 a strong left wing movement had developed following attempts by the University to victimise persons involved in political activity and a campaign by socialists to give the students union to the general meeting. In May 1968, a free university, the culmination of this movement, arose out of several general meetings of staff and students (well over 1,000) which met to call upon the Vice-Chancellor to rescind his arbitrary expulsion of three left wing students. But the left movement was as yet unable to fight the institution's ultimate weapon, the examination, and the free university fell.
Nevertheless, the academic year 1968/9 began with really high hopes, the non-fulfilment of which sowed the seeds of a tragic depression which pervaded every aspect of social life on the Essex campus. It was as if the only time we were remotely free was during moments when we were fighting and although there were many of these, each was short-lived. During the first term 37 of us were fined £20 each after Colchester police gave trumped-up evidence relat ng to a Vietnam Demonstration in Colchester On the last day of the first term at around 6 p.m., the University informed the only one of the three students suspended last.May still at the University, Raphael Halberstadt, that he must "withdraw". An occupation of the University Computer Centre took place at the beginning of the second term. The University Administration remained intransigent and when they went so far as to take out an injunction against Raffy, the High Court held that he had been illegally excluded and was still a student. Also that term was the occupation of the lecture theatre block in solidarity with the LSE students and the ill-fated "Revolutionary Festival". In the last term a Parliamentary Select Committee came to examine student unrest. Instead of asking those in the audience that may have been able to help them, only certain preselected members of the University Administration were allowed to submit evidence. When we in the audience objected we were accused of breaking up the meeting.
At the end of the summer term this year, Pam Thompson, about the only black undergraduate ever at the University, was "asked to withdraw" . Her crime? Failing to achieve the prescribed "academic standard". That is, she ailed a minor language option by two per cent. She was thrown out in spite of the fact that the Chairman of her Department, Fabian Professor Peter Townsend, assured her that she should concentrate on her main sociology subjects (in which she attained very good grades) and that if she failed the language option he would "square it" for her, Throughout the summer vacation and the beginning of this term, Pam's friends tried to get the decision changed. They appealed to the Dean of the School, Professor David Lockwood, but he made it clear that he did not want to get involved. Next they appealed to the School Board, the "appropriate committee" which rejected Pam's appeal by eight votes to seven (note that this-is the academic standard). Prior to the Board meeting, nearly every member of the Sociology Department had indicated their desire to have Pam reinstated to complete he final vear. that all the "legal means to get Par back had failed, a general meeting of 400 voted to move en masse to lobby Vice-Chancellor Sloman. Dr. Sloman claimed that he supported the decision of the "responsible body" albeit whilst dis claiming any knowledge of the facts, and claimed that the body that would have to alter the decision, if it were to be altered, was the University Senate. The same evening Students Council resolved that if Pam were not reinstated by Tuesday morning, they would withdraw all forms of cooperation with the Administration, e.g. by not sitting on committees. The following afternoon a general meeting of 500 staff and students demanded an emergency meeting of Senate, the governing body of the University, to immediately reinstate Pam Thompson. Over the weekend the University was decorated with posters, a petition received around 800 signatures and a leaflet was issued giving the internal phone numbers of each member of the Senate.
By Tuesday 28th October the Senate had of course issued no statement. The Tuesday meeting was even larger and three other students declared that they too had been unfairly treated. Nick Jones had been "asked to withdraw" in June 1968 because of a "bad disciplinary record" and told that he could return this year if he passed examinations in June. After passing these examinations with top grades he then received a letter from the University Administration informing him that hecause of his "bad disciplinary record" he could not return. Graham Joscelyne had been expelled without trial last January following his admission to a local mental hospital in connection with drugs. The University Administration refused to let him complete his final year in spite of medical reports stating that he was no longer dependent upon drugs. Dinah Bolton was another victim of the mythical academic standard.
This Tuesday general meeting expressed solidarity with all four students, but again did not decide upon any militant action. This was probably influenced by previous experience, which has taught us that there is no nerve centre with in the University which is particularly vulnerable and that conventional forms of direct action bring no immediate reaction. A policy of mass lobbying of senators was agreed upon. Consequently, every member of Senate, including the Vice-Chancellor, was to be continually lobbied until the following Monday. Lobbying too brought forth no response. There remained a refusal on the part of Senate to discuss the futures of these four students with fellow members of the University. On Monday 3rd November, a large general meeting agreed to devote the following day to a token strike of lectures, bar, classes, coffee bar, restaurant, shops. The ridiculed and that the point of the demonstration had been achieved. The four students remain excluded.
Subsequently, general meetings of up to 1,000 have expressed support for the blockade of Senate and have demanded a public inquiry into Essex University. A petition with over 200 signatures demanding a public inquiry into Essex University has been rejected by the Department of Education and Science. Around 20 stu 'dents are to appear before a disciplinary committee, the University's organ of political repression, before the end of term, for their part in the blockade. Over half of those accused have issued a joint statement demanding that these political trials be held together and in public. Moreover, the University is also using the law courts as a source of sanction. One graduate of the University, Chris Ratcliffe, still ives in the area for the time being, although h s no longer a registered student. His part in th Senate Blockade won him an injunction restraining him from entering the University of Essex campus. Being refused legal aid and getting no help from several solicitors, he was forced to defend himsell. At the first hearing before the Judge in Chambers on Tuesday 18th November, Chris succeeded in having the University's application for a renewal of the injunction rejected on the basis of an undertaking of "good behaviour". But the University Ad. ministration were not satisfied, and took the matter to the Court of Appeal, where Chris had to face not only the University Administration, but a Queen's Counsel, three barristers, solicitor and three Lords Justice of Appeal. In spite of giving a 15-page statement in his detence and in spite of being commended upon his presentation of his case, he inevitably lost. A political file was produced by the University Administra tion giving details of his role in many demons trations in and out of the University.
The liberal experiment at Essex has failed because the myth of an integrated community remains a myth. As ever, decision-making, discipline, course content, entrance requirements, and assessment are reserved for a very small group of senior academics and administrators. Time after time we have seen the express wish of a majority of the members of the University laughed at by the one or two that have the power. In the Court of Appeal, the University was for all intents and purposes one person, the Registrar. Moreover, this one person under the name "University of Essex" may "manage its affairs in the same way as an individual manages his property" for the University "is neither a collection of buildings nor a community of scholars, but a corporation with a charter" (Lord Justice Harman). ents' Union officials was terminated rather abruptly, when after two minutes the principal ordered the students out of his room. Students saw this action as a slight to the entire Students Union, necessitating some form of effective ac tion to show their determination to be treated as equals. Much of the support for the occupation seemed to be based on loyalty to the Union and backing up its officials.
At the Union meeting Tuesday evening, the Union Executive called for a "non-violent sit-in of the college main building for twelve hours from the close of this meeting to show its deter; mination to re-open negotiations immediately... An amendment was put to change "sit-in" to "occupation" and "Twelve hours" to "twenty. four"
The interesting thing about the amendment is that its proposers did not intend that it should be passed. Rather they hoped that by presenting a "militant alternative they would get the moderates to see the "twelve hour sit-in" as a moderate alternative. The proposer stressed that "occupation" meant total control of the building, as opposed to merely staying in the canteen. Later, as support for the amendment seemed to be growing, the head of the Socialist Society spoke for the amendment. Fearing that there were not enough people present to carry out a successful occupation, he deliberately adopted a manner that he hoped would alienate the "moderates" so that only the twelve-hour sit-in would pass.
But the sentiment for direct action proved too strong. The meeting voted about 75-65 fo the "militant alternative", with almost all the opposition coming from a block of students on a one-year professional course. The occupatio was then approved overwhelmingly, and began The night went very well, with films (including The Columbia Revolt), a rock group (which had to be asked to stop after a short time because people in the flats across the street had complained), a span of Socialist Society seminars on familiar topics by famous revolutionaries, and free food (donations accepted). An occupation committee emerged, and a mil form of "occupation committee paranoia" led to the ejection of two well-known outside revolutionaries who looked like they might be disrupting things. Other revolutionary well-wishers were treated most hospitably, so the experience of this unfortunate two must be put down to a flaw in revolutionary consciousness.
Two general assemblies took place during the early morning hours. At the second of these, the occupation committee put forward a plan for barricading the corridors leading to the administrative offices. They felt that such a plan could be successful if there were at least 100 people committed to carrying it through. A