Friday 29-09-2017 - 15:00

A couple of weeks ago I went to RAISE Conference 2017 in Manchester, which is all about ‘student engagement’: students in partnership, students as co-creators of their own curricula, students as co-governors of their own universities. There were a lot of interesting academics there rubbing shoulders with educational practitioners and people from the student movement, making for a conference that would have been fascinating in its own right, even if it hadn’t been critically relevant to my role as Opportunities Officer. As compelling as I found the subject matter, I had to leave early for an immovable meeting that Friday: training for Senate Discipline Committee. The juxtaposition of these two events prompted these thoughts.

Senate Discipline Committee (SDC) deals with major offences against the University and University community. Only SDC can expel students from the University. It also has a range of less severe punishments to hand for use according to the circumstances. The unique thing about SDC is that it treats students equally to staff. Both receive the same training. Alongside the chair, two students and two staff members attend each hearing. Instead of having to negotiate with the University, the Students’ Union nominates whomever it likes to be members from amongst the students who already hold elected positions in the Union or University.

It would be easy to celebrate this as a shining example of University collaboration with students, as a model of student engagement for us to follow across the board. A little too easy.

The natural question is why SDC is so good at student engagement when the rest of the University is so mediocre.  Is this actually an example of ‘student co-option’ rather than student engagement? Did the University bring us on board simply to bring a semblance of natural justice to the process by which they expel their students? Did the University invite us there just so we could help them to comply with expectations set by external regulators about formal disciplinary processes?

Some would say yes, and that yet again student politicians are complicit in perpetuating the neoliberal horrorscape of higher education as a result. The picture is a bit blurrier than that. For one thing, it is correct that in the quasi-judicial process of University discipline, accused students have a right to some level of judgment by their peers. Leaders who were elected to represent students and know their communities best are well-placed to fulfil this duty. For another, the students on the committee can be much harsher than their academic colleagues are. Each case is confidential, but it is said that often students are the clearest voice for defending their own communities, and rightly so.

Take the example of sexual harassment and violence. Students have pushed for a zero-tolerance approach to sexual violence across the University, culminating in Durham’s ground-breaking sexual violence and misconduct policy. Therefore, it is right that students are in the room to ensure that the zero-tolerance policy applies at the highest level.

So, SDC is more an example of student partnership than it is of student co-option. Where does this leave us? We should still be criticising the University, because this is the exception, rather than the norm. Why aren’t we equals in every committee, classroom and lecture hall of the University? Why are students just 3 of the 77 members of Senate? There are 4 academics called David on Senate, so men called David are better represented on the supreme academic body of the University than all 18,000 students (there are 3 men called Simon and 3 men called John, so at least we’re pulling even with those categories). There is an issue of gender here. Durham University is the worst in the Russell Group for having women in senior positions, but all three student representatives on Senate this year will be women. (Last year, we had two positions and they were both women.) Students are by no means perfect at gender representation, but we can certainly help make the University’s record less embarrassing. 

With thanks to Nick Glover for the conversation that inspired this article.