Save Rowbotham and Eagleton
I have read more books by Terry Eagleton and Sheila Rowbotham than Kingsley and Martin Amis. Though I did go through a phase in my mid-teens reading the sexist buffoonery of Amis snr (I embraced feminism soon afterwards!). For me personally, Eagleton and Rowbotham have been a political influence over the years.
My socialist feminism tilts towards Sheila Rowbotham and her writings. Her political consciousness tinged with her personal experiences of the early days of the women’s liberation movement (autobiographical Promise of a Dream) to the more analytical exposition of Leninism in Beyond the Fragments.
I think I have read most of her books and have listened to her speak (Beyond the Fragments updated). She has been an influential feminist thinker and leading activist.
So instead of seeing the importance of Eagleton and Rowbotham, Manchester has seen fit to axe them. Bless ‘em at Facebook as some individuals have set up a group to “Save Sheila Rowbotham”.
What I find galling and completely shocking is that Martin Amis, part of the lumpen lamentable literati, is paid £80,000 for his labour that entails 28 hours a year. Manchester can cough up the dosh to pay the, ahem, professor of creative writing yet Eagleton and Rowbotham are being consigned to the academic dustbin.
Ah yes, the professor of creative writing who expressed his contempt for Muslims in a rabid racist rant and had the gall to later say his remarks were, “describing an urge…that soon wore off.”
But that racist rant was a political act in itself. And Manchester want to keep this racist buffoon!
Though the university likes to attract the “stars” and Amis has the ability and is quite adept at using his right-wing politics to ingratiate himself in the media and celebrity lifestyle, which the university probably sees as very attractive. Amis being an ideologue of the establishment. I wonder if the university is using the “excuse” of the £30m (and getting rid of 650 staff) debt to purge the Left? A two fingered salute to the left and the unions?
The university is forcing Sheila to retire ‘cos they can’t afford to pay her salary and ‘cos Eagleton reaches retirement age he too could face the axe (and there could be an issue of age discrimination). It seems like the university is servicing business and not ideas.
If you want to tell Manchester what you think about this decision regarding Rowbotham then email them and oh, be creative….
Head of Social Sciences
david.farrell@manchester.a
Dean of Humanities
alistair.ulph@manchester.a
President and Vice Chancellor
president@manchester.ac.uk
I can’t comment upon Martin Amis as a fiction writer, but as an historian he is an utter idiot. See my review of his book on Stalin on the What Next site.
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Newint/Amis.html
Comment by Dr Paul — 8 March, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
This is another example of the Labour Party’s purging the Left.
The Long March of the Labour Party privatising and purging the institutions.Oh your a member of the right wing Thatcherite Labour Party!
Rowbotham has not been active for about 400 years and then only to attack various parts of the Left through learned books and articles.
What exactly are you suggesting we fight to defend. Some academic ex leftists superannuated perch in the ivory tower?
I have more time for Eagleton he at least has been active and is of the left.
However perhaps your time might be better spent thinking about what your disgusting party is doing to ordinary working people never mind the academics.
The Labour Party happily privatising the NHS
Comment by ANiN — 8 March, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Why should those two be given special treatment? The rule at the Uni is that you retire when you reach the right age. I’m sure a professor of engineering who doesn’t have the advantage of a band of flag-waving political admirers would think it rather unfair if he got handed his pension but Terry and Sheila remained in post.
This is not political persecution, it’s the rules - and they should apply to everyone.
Comment by Carlo — 8 March, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Both Terry Eagleton and Sheila Rowbotham were born in 1943. It’s now 2008. How old does that make them? What do ordinary people do at that age?
Witch hunt my arse. More like special pleading.
Comment by Hillary — 8 March, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
The rule at the Uni - in normal times - is that you don’t have to retire at age 65. That’s the point.
Comment by Phil — 8 March, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Presumably this is affecting other academics reaching normal retirement age? We just don’t get to hear about them because they’ve missed the gossip columns. Me, like most of the working class, I would love to retire at 65; 60 even. The way things are going this is a hopeless dream. Oh - those ivory towers!
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 9 March, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Yes of course but if there was a successful campaign to stop Marxist academics being forced out when others aren’t then this is no bad thing.
And then let’s link it woith other campaigns on the campus and beyond - e.g. against job cuts (though I think this may have already been lost this time around- my wife works in catering at the uni but scandalously the Uni metro accepted voluntary redundancies without even consulting its members), for migrant students to be allowed to study, for solidarity with Palestinian universities and try to rebuild the left on the campus and beyond.
We should be against forced retiremnt even while we’re for the right of all to retire at 60 or younger.
Comment by Jason — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
CDW - It’s been affecting “other” academics for decades, particularly in the home of the new model of education, the United States.
The “metrics” of the corporation have been firmly established in the ivory towers, meaning that insane ideas like “bibliotechnical analysis” - or how many pounds of drivel you can churn out per quarter - are now common currency.
It’s all about coin. Rock stars can always be awarded “Chairs” or “Emeritus” status that’ll keep ‘em in an office until they have to be carted out in a box. If a prof. can get funding he or she is basically all set. What this does to a person who on the one hand is supposedly trying to create new and unique forms of knowledge is becoming all too clear. More than half of the time spent “on campus” is on bureaucratic negotiations with external agencies and ‘benefactors’.
“Teaching” and “Research” are the things done in the spare minutes left over.
Which brings me on to a note of caution re: Amis’s pay.
If the 28 hours are class time then 80K isn’t that staggering an amount. Being generous and assuming that Mart’ is going to be doing three to fours days of hard research for each lecture… It’s no more than an average IT consultant fleecing a hospital…
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Professors quite often stay on part time after 65 by agreement. My ol’ PhD supervisor is doing that, infact, as do plenty of others. Manchester would benefit from Eagleton and Rowbotham’s international reputation - and only have to pay 1/2 salary or less!!! A bargian! So it seems silly to get rid of them. But that’s probably to do with the massive cuts at that uni at the moment. This also reflects a change in the way uni’s are managed - less by academic staff, and more by ‘professional’ managers.
Comment by Larry R — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
But what’s driving the massive cuts? And why aren’t the unions doing anything about it? Or ver little.
My partner works in catering and Unison have accepted ‘voluntary severance’ without even consulting the members. UCU have also I think accepted voluntary severance though at least thye had meetings about it.
I don’t know th eins and outs of finance and they certainly don’t even inform the people who work there about the reasons- they;re just presented form on high as ‘fact’- but I suspect an inspection of the accounts would reveal that money has been wasted. I wonder how much they spend on private consultants?
The war in Iraq has cost some £5 billion - so I’m sure £30 million is not too hard to find.
There’s no way the workers at the Uni whether professors or kitchen porters should have to pay the price.
Comment by Jason — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Perhaps Louise should contact Tery Eagleton and or Sheila Rowbottom and they do a campaigning article about the cuts in the Uni, linked to let the workers and students at the Uni and thew wider public to have access to the accounts so we know what’s hppened to our money anf ‘our’ university?
Comment by Jason — 9 March, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
I don’t have any special knowledge of what’s going on in Manchester, but my impression (from a distance) is that there might be slightly different issues here between Eagleton’s situation and Rowbotham’s.
With regards to Eagleton, it is an open secret that the University managers have been keen to get him sacked ever since they took over. It’s a left-right issue.
For two years, the people who run the university have been trying to apppoint people on very highly paid star contracts. Amis fits into that category, as well as another appointee Stiglitz. I’m sure Blair will tour there too in a year or so.
The people who are sought are ones who have a high media recognition, and have spent very little working time in universities. Above all, it’s important that they are people who couldn’t do anything to embarrass the institution.
A very serious attempt was made to remove Eagleton two years ago, on the basis that he is not ‘iconic’ (in contrast to Stiglitz, Amis, etc).
The attempt failed, however, largely as a result of protests by members of the faculty, including relatively junior people - students and research students, some of them active in organisations of the left.
This second attempt is no doubt the managers’ bid for revenge.
People have made the point, above, that nobody should have to retire at 65 who doesn’t want to.
As for the law, prior to 2006, a worker who was dismissed could not claim unfair dismissal. That right has now been reinstated as part of the Regulations outlawing Age discrimination at work. Those apply equally to university lecturers and other people, doing whatever different kind of job.
Before those laws were passed, activists did campaign for a complete abolition of all compulosy retirement ages - the idea being that workers, rather than employers, should decide when they wanted to leave.
That campaign unfortunately lost, although the government has promised to review the matter, I think by 2011.
Personally, I couldn’t imagine working to 50, let alone 65. Then again, for most people who want to carry on in work past 65 the issue is pension rather than working conditions.
There is a gender issue here. In universities, the average pension is currently of the order of £10,000 p/a post retirement. Among women the figure is much lower -more like £7,000.
Most people casually reading the article probably assume that Rowbotham has spent most of her working life teaching in universities. I think that’s wrong: she went in to university jobs in her late 40s, having previously been a full-time mother, and I also think there was a period when she worked for the GLC.
Again, I don’t know how much she’s paid as a professor: but the scale is considerably lower, for example, than a number of New Labourish graduate entry policy jobs in London. Imagine the salaries of Ken’s friends at the GLC, and then divide by 3.
Given the relatively small amount of years that she’s spent working in HE, I imagine that she’s looking at a pension of around 1/5 of her current salary: even someone who’s now on a decent wage could look at that and fear the possibilty of being poor in old age. If she wants to stay at work, and the university wants to sack her - people should rally round.
Comment by Harrods — 9 March, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Jason:
“But what’s driving the massive cuts? And why aren’t the unions doing anything about it?”
The answer to both questions is the same: the money’s already been spent- not only on people like Amis, Stiglitz and Putnam, but on all the new buildings that have gone up. The President (we dont have a vicechancellor these days) mailed us all last year saying that the University was massively in debt. Nothing to worry about, the plan always was for the University to be masively in debt at this stage, but unfortunately due to circumstances beyond our control the University was really really massively in debt- so no new posts for ordinary mortals and lots of people were going to have to take early retirement. I think they’ve just about straightened it out now, but money’s still pretty tight.
Comment by Part-timer — 9 March, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
#11 Jason: Not a bad suggestion. I will see what I can do.
Comment by Louise — 9 March, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Strangely enough this made it on to North-West tonight- OK piece though no appearance from Eagleton- just a still photograph.
Not too bad a piece but hardly fighting propaganda. There’s also this campaign in the university- it needs I think to be linked with a vibrant fight against cutbacks, for the right of asylum seekers and migrants to study, against privatisation and militarisation.
http://www.reclaimtheuni.org/
Comment by Jason — 8 April, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Eagleton and Rowbotham are both milking the system for all it is worth - it is a restrictive practice if you say “left-wing theorists should have jobs for life”
I have read most of Eagleton’s work, and would not go on a march to defend him if he gets shit from his boss.
Comment by David Ruaune — 26 July, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Terry Eagleton is being forced to retire for his socialist and Marxist views by the right wing conspiracy. This is utterly against the norms of a university act where freedom of expression of one’s views is granted. University of Manchester will regret when Eagleton wins a noble prize. Many reputable universities in USA will love to have him on their faculty.
Comment by Gurmel Sidhu — 15 October, 2008 @ 1:19 am
Noble [sic] prize for what?
Comment by David Ruaune — 31 December, 2008 @ 12:17 am