VC answers critics: "How many Vice Chancellors have been willing to put their head above the parapet?"

Michael Arther faces Leeds Student Interview

By Charlie Cooper and Tom Knowles

Michael Arthur has been many things to many people over the past months.

 The anti-cuts movement in Leeds has portrayed the Vice-Chancellor as a money-grabbing fat cat; the arch-villain of the cuts saga. The first issue of The Really Open University’s publication The Sausage Factory (right) called Arthur an ‘example of a dead financial system’, citing his six-figure salary and weekly commute from Southampton to Leeds as  excesses that represent a two finger salute to those facing redundancy as a result of his ‘economies exercise’.
    But in his role as Chair of the Russell Group, he has been a vocal campaigner against the government’s national Higher Education strategy. The plans, which come from the recently formed Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, amount to a potential £2.5bn cut in annual spending – an entire third of current spending wiped off the slate.
    On the morning of Monday January 11, the beginning of a new working year and a new university term, Arthur seemed set to become the figurehead of the anti-cuts movement, leading a media barrage against the cuts that included a featured article in The Guardian and an appearance on Radio 4’s Today programme. His Guardian article, co-written with Director-General of the Russell Group Wendy Piatt, condemned the government’s strategy in the strongest possible terms, warning of ‘meltdown’ in the Higher Education sector, and an ‘800 year’ tradition ‘[brought] to its knees’.
    According to Arthur, the article was greeted with displeasure by the Cabinet, in particular Business Secretary, and architect of the cuts agenda, Peter Mandelson. ‘The retaliation was interesting’, said Arthur in his biannual Q&A session with students. ‘[They said] I was over-exaggerating when I said that it’s taken 800 years to produce this level of higher education, it may only take six months to bring it to its knees. I was probably a bit excessive in the language, but it did make people read it. I needed ministers and politicians who are not usually interested in Higher Education to get the message.’
    But students and staff may have reason to feel aggrieved that this level of anti-cuts action has not been sustained. Arthur insists they are mistaken: ‘I can promise you I am fighting incredibly hard. How many Vice Chancellors have been willing to put their head above the parapet in the press and be as aggressive as that? I’ve been on TV, I’ve been on radio. We thought at one stage we might get as far as Paxman. Mandelson, Paxman and me, which would have been absolutely terrifying but I would have been up for it.’
    The Vice-Chancellor’s main message to students was clear: ‘If I can stop cutting I will.’
    On the question of tuition fees, and the potential for the cap on fees to be removed in a bid to fill the void left by spending cuts, Arthur says the government is foregoing discussion until the Browne Review of Higher Education Finance reports in the autumn of this year. ‘If I even try to talk to the government about fees they immediately say: “Browne review. Lord Browne is looking at this, thank you very much Michael we don’t want to talk about fees.”
    While resisting cuts on a national level, Arthur has been tasked with preparing Leeds University for the impact cuts will have when they hit. £35 million of savings are being proposed to keep the University from going into the red, and an estimated 400 jobs are under threat, though the figure may be higher. University Management faced strong resistance from the University and Colleges Union over its implementation of the so-called ‘economies exercise’, and strike action was only narrowly averted last week.
    Meanwhile, a formal complaint was made by a Leeds academic to The Privy Council Office in London, which oversees management procedures at universities. The complaint, or petition, claimed Leeds University Management had failed to observe the Charter and Statutes of the University with regard to restructuring processes in the Faculty of Biological Sciences (FBS) and the School of Healthcare. It was alleged that Management had failed to properly consult the University’s Senate with regard to their proposals.
    No judgement has yet been made by the Privy Council, but in an interview with Leeds Student, Arthur insisted that Management ‘followed the Charter absolutely with regard to the economies exercise’. He does however concede that, with regard to FBS, Management ‘should have taken the FBS paper to Senate, one Senate earlier’.
    The head of the Privy Council, grandly dubbed the Visitor, is none other than Peter Mandelson, a figure who Arthur seems to find himself come up against again and again.
    Asked if he felt betrayed by Mandelson over the scale of cuts announced in December, Arthur admitted to being ‘disappointed at the level of cuts’ and that, whilst he was informed about the cuts outlined in the pre-budget report, he was given ‘no intimation’ about the scale of the December cuts, which amounted to an extra £135 million being struck off annual funding.
    Arthur recognizes the government is in a difficult position, and needs to make savings in the wake of the recession, but is nonetheless strongly critical of their Higher Education strategy. ‘The government has got a really significant financial problem with the national debt,’ he said, ‘It’s got a problem of the credit rating, it’s got the problem of sterling falling through the roof.
    The economy is on a knife edge and if the government doesn’t respond to that, then those global economic factors come into place, so it’s going have to respond, it’s going to have make some tax increases or some more public sector spending cuts. My view is that universities should take a share of that, but not an undue share and not a ridiculous share that will negatively impact Higher Education.’
    However, Arthur believes universities and an investment agenda might have an unlikely champion in none other than the Prime Minister. ‘I’m encouraged by some things the PM says. He has said there is a future which includes investment in Digital Britain, it includes investment in low-carbon futures, it includes an investment in bio-medicine, pharmaceutical industries and medical technologies and other aspects of high-tech engineering and education. The PM has said he thinks education can become a major export industry for the UK.’ But Arthur remains frustrated by the failure to convert such rhetoric to action, and generally baffled by the government’s short-sighted approach. ‘Why would you say all that on the one hand and then cut Higher Education on the other? You don’t cut things that can help you out in that situation and I honestly believe Higher Education is part of the answer by feeding into the knowledge economy which will feed into growth. So all I’m asking the government to do is to think strategically about where it’s appropriate to cut and where it is appropriate to invest.’
    As for the role students can play in resisting cuts, Arthur is positive: “I’d like to see students making their voice known up and down the country. This is an important set of issues and an important thing for the country. I think if you feel the cuts are wrong then you should express that.”