Warwick’s pro-EU stance is a short-sighted shame
There are three certainties in life: death, tax and vested interests blurring vision. In maybe the world’s least shocking revelation, it was revealed last week by the Boar that Warwick University will be placing their support firmly behind the ‘remain’ campaign ahead of this June’s EU referendum.
Who can blame them? They receive 15% of their funding from the EU pot – and God knows they must be desperate for money after how fast they blew my £9000 on that hideous logo. The University’s press and policy officer, Peter Dunn, cited ‘academic’ reasons for the decision, which will likely be announced in term three. But, cheap shots about the new logo aside, this is a remarkably short-sighted, and really rather unnecessary, stance to take.
God knows they must be desperate for money after how fast they blew my £9000 on that hideous logo
In the absence of any formal decision, or even slight elaboration on what ‘academic’ reasons could mean, the scope of this article is inherently limited. That said, a few things are clear even at this point. The University makes this decision in the context of a roughly 50/50 split between ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ camps in the polls and our national decision finely balanced.
They weigh-in on this debate knowing a few hundred votes could be the difference between leaving and remaining. They weigh-in to purposefully influence the decisions of us all. If the University you attend think it’s good, it must be. Right?
They weigh-in to purposefully influence the decisions of us all
The truth is, then, that Warwick’s decision to abandon the neutral high-ground holds some considerable importance. So how can it be explained? Could it be the EU university funding already eluded to? A point which, as often as is raised, fails to address the fact Britain is a net-contributor to the EU and there’d be more money to invest in higher education post-Brexit?
Maybe it’s research collaboration with EU member states and within EU programmes, as though there’s any threat of the nation with Europe’s best universities and academics being excluded from such work? Could it be the ease of access EU students have to UK universities, of course all at the same time that equally qualified students from the rest of the world miss-out?
Warwick’s decision to abandon the neutral high-ground holds some considerable importance
In any case I’m pre-empting Peter Dunn and the University’s reasoning, which is unfair. It will ultimately be very interesting to see how Warwick explain themselves, but in the meantime we’re left with one fact to comment on: their abandonment of neutrality.
Lasting scarcely more than a month after the referendum was announced, neutrality had meant Warwick was above debate. It meant Warwick’s message was about personal choice, about being open to whatever future the electorate decide upon. A respectable stance.
We’re left with one fact to comment on: their abandonment of neutrality
That’s all gone, the University has lowered itself to taking sides in a nationwide vote. Yet we never saw the University backing a political party in last year’s general election, and nor did we see them recommending a candidate to vote for in the Student’s Union elections.
Both are presumably important matters for the University: the government have the say on policies like student number caps and the cost of tuition, and the SU president is its principle means of communicating with students. Why is the EU referendum, and its similar importance to the University, treated any differently?
Yet we never saw the University backing a political party in last year’s general election
Neutrality, it seems, is overrated. Far better to intrude on discussion, lower the University to taking sides, and destroy any hope of the institution removing itself from our lives. There’ll be no accepting this decision is personal, and has such gravity that what Warwick think is an irrelevance, oh no. Far be from it for them to maintain such an admirable position.
Comments (2)
The author seems to have forgotten that the University is not neutral on the matter regardless of whether or not it announces it. All the university has done is publicly declare its bias, one which the author admits is obvious anyway.
Secondly this is of greater importance than a general election or an SU election by a huge distance. This will dictate how the UK operates internationally potentially for decades. It is an absolutely momentous occasion in British politics that’s happens once in a lifetime. Not every five years. Not every year. And the effects will be far wider reaching than our shores.
The number of block quotes in this make it somewhat difficult to read. Besides that, what’s the point of this other than a pleasantly sensational headline? It’s light on facts and even light on opinion, other than ‘vaguely incensed’.
The university have a history of taking a stance on very specific issues that would directly affect them (see, raising the tuition fees cap for instance) – and this falls into that category. Although it’s true that the university does gain from EU funding, it’s not hard to see that academia is an incredibly international field and that it’s rather natural for a university to be opposed, for academic reasons, to a change in policy that could make international collaboration and exchange of ideas and personnel much more difficult.