VC's Voice

---

Like most members of the University, I was greatly relieved at the voluntary ending on Friday May 7 of the occupation of Sussex House. The occupiers showed good sense in bringing their action to a close. They benefited from the good fortune that unexpected delays in the legal processes had postponed their involuntary ejection.

Pleasure and relief at the ending of the occupation should not obscure the fact that it was a futile and damaging action. It may have won a few minutes of sympathetic coverage in the local media for the problems of student funding, but this was achieved at a significant cost to the University. The occupiers were careful to avoid damage to the occupied offices, but the occupation still cost us many thousand pounds. There was also the non-monetary cost imposed on those staff who suffered the unpleasant experience of invasion of their personal working space.

The occupation was strikingly unsuccessful in building support among the vast majority of students and staff, who understood that the occupiers' dispute was with the government not the University. This was underlined by the way that the occupation stopped the distribution of grant cheques and hardship funds to students. The University exists to serve students and to further the pursuit of knowledge, and disruption of its work inevitably damages services to students.

Perhaps the strangest feature of the occupation was the unwillingness of the occupiers to enter into any discussion with me or other University officers. The University is committed to free speech and open discussion. Reluctance to argue openly betrays a lack of confidence in the strength of one's case.

Student funding is now a key issue for the new Scottish Parliament. Most political parties in Scotland want the Scottish Education Department to pay the fees of all full-time students from Scotland. If Scottish taxpayers put an additional £40m into student support, that will be most welcome. But I'd rather see the extra money put into supporting the maintenance costs of students from less well-off families than paying the fees of students from better-off families. Slogans about 'the right to free education' are in danger of supporting transfers from the poor to the rich.