A history of the University of Manchester 1973–90 Brian Pullan with Michele Abendstern A history of the University of Manchester 1973–90 PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page i PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page ii A history of the University of Manchester 1973–90 Brian Pullan with Michele Abendstern Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page iii Copyright © Brian Pullan and Michele Abendstern 2004 The right of Brian Pullan and Michele Abendstern to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9NR, UK and Room 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk Distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA Distributed exclusively in Canada by UBC Press, University of British Columbia, 2029 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 0 7190 6242 X hardback First published 2004 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Typeset in Sabon with Stone Sans by Northern Phototypesetting Co Ltd, Bolton Printed in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page iv Preface vi Abbreviations ix Preliminary note xi I The 1970s 1 Uncertainty, economy and improvisation 3 2 The academics: achievement and self-doubt 29 3 The academics: consultation and conditions 53 4 The students: life and opinions 68 5 The students: campaigns and causes 96 II The 1980s 6 New direction 121 7 Contraction, 1981–84 142 8 Enterprise and economy 167 9 The Students’ Union and the politicians 189 10 Efficiency and academic freedom 214 11 Research and rationalisation 239 12 Student culture in the 1980s 268 13 Epilogue 293 Sources and bibliography 301 People interviewed 306 Statistical appendix (by Michele Abendstern and Steve Chick) 312 Index 325 Contents PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page v Work on this history of the University of Manchester in the second half of the twentieth century began in 1998, when the University was preparing to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the foundation of its ancestor, Owens College, in 1851. The committee which planned the celebrations originally had in mind a single, handy volume which would provide a sequel to H.B. Charlton’s Portrait of a University 1851–1951, written by a distinguished Professor of English Literature to mark the centenary of the institution. But the history began to take on a life of its own, since the rich and varied material which came into our hands demanded more extended treatment, and the committee was kind enough to allow us to make new arrangements and to bring out the work in at least two volumes. The first of these was published at the end of the year 2000, in time to mark the celebrations in 2001. Publication of this second volume will relate to another important anniversary, the centenary of the establishment of an independent University in Manchester in 1903. In that year the Victoria University (the federal university of the north of England) began to be dismantled, the colleges at Leeds and Liverpool were on their way to becoming sep- arate universities, and the title of Victoria University of Manchester was conferred on the former Owens College. This volume follows the same principles, uses a similar range of sources both written and oral, and takes up the same themes as its pre- decessor, carrying them beyond the point in 1973 when universities began to face grave financial difficulties and their relationship with the Government became increasingly tense and even sour. The story con- siders the reigns of two Vice-Chancellors who adopted very different styles, Sir Arthur Armitage (1970–80) and Sir Mark Richmond (1981–90). As before, the aim of the book is to sketch a panorama of the social and political history of the University and to establish a broad framework within which more detailed intellectual histories of parts of the University may be placed. Several interesting studies, 1 Preface PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page vi monographs exploring in depth the histories of particular faculties and departments, anthologies of personal recollections, accounts of life in smaller communities such as University halls of residence, have already appeared, and we can only hope that others will follow. Once again, we have tried not to write our history only from the point of view of the central establishment or from that of academics only; nor have we relied solely or even primarily on the official records of Sen- ate, Court and Council or on the University’s house magazines, ample and informative though these are. Four of the thirteen chapters dis- cuss student affairs and draw heavily on reports and correspondence in student newspapers as well as on the reminiscences of students of the 1970s and 1980s. Like its predecessor, this volume seeks, not just to celebrate the achievements of the University and of individuals and groups within it, but also to deal frankly and honestly with contro- versial issues which exposed it to criticism. The main text of the book was written by Brian Pullan, who drew on the many lengthy interviews conducted by Michele Abendstern with academics, administrators, members of the support staff and stu- dents who have vivid memories of the period described and analysed in this volume. Michele Abendstern and Steve Chick compiled the sta- tistical appendix. We owe many thanks to all those who agreed to be interviewed for this book (their names, with a brief account of the positions they held in the 1970s and 1980s, are listed on pp. 306–11); to those who gave us access to personal papers and to collections of material that might otherwise have escaped us (John Griffith, Sir George Kenyon, Tony Trinci, Joan Walsh and George Wilmers); to George Brooke for materi- als on the Faculty of Theology, to Hilary Kahn for materials on the history of computer science in Manchester, to Richard Davies and Frank O’Gorman for papers about history and historians, and to Gillian White for information about lawyers; to many others, including John Pickstone and Alan Shelston, for enlightening conversations about aspects of the University’s history; to Will Eades and the staff of DARO (the Development and Alumni Relations Office) for general support and assistance; to Estates and Services for finding us accommodation and storage space for our materials; to Peter Nockles and his successor as University archivist, James Peters, for expert guidance to materials held in the University Library; to the Vice-Chancellor’s office for enabling us to consult Senate and Council minutes not available else- where; to Alan Ferns and the staff of the International and Public Rela- tions Office for back numbers of Staff Comment and Communication ; Preface vii PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page vii to Steve Chick, for compiling the graphs in the statistical appendix; to Tracy Carrington and Marian Haberhauer for transcribing the tapes of the interviews; to Peter McNiven of the John Rylands University Library and Andrew Schofield of the North West Sound Archive for arranging to store the tapes and transcripts in their respective institu- tions; and to members of the staff of Manchester University Press for their expertise in seeing this book through to publication. We are greatly indebted to Bill Beswick, Christine Hallett, Christopher Kenyon, Ken Kitchen and David Richardson for their kindness and patience in reading all or part of the typescript, and for saving us from omissions and errors. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copy- right material in this book. If any proper acknowledgement has not been made, copyright-holders are invited to contact the publisher. Acknowledgement is made to the author and Harper Collins for per- mission to reproduce the poem ‘Bill’ by Simon Curtis, from On the Abthorpe Road and Other Poems (London: Davis-Poynter, 1975). viii Preface PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page viii ALA Associate of the Library Association ASTMS Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs AUEW Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers AUT Association of University Teachers BMFRS Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society CAFD Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy CBE Commander of the Order of the British Empire CND Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament CURID Centre for Urban and Regional Industrial Development CVCP Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals D.Sc. Doctor of Science ESRC Economic and Social Research Council FBA Fellow of the British Academy FCMA Fellow of the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants FDSC Faculty Development Sub-Committee FRS Fellow of the Royal Society FRSA Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts FRSL Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature ICI Imperial Chemical Industries JCR Junior Common Room JCUD Joint Committee for University Development Ll.D. Doctor of Laws LSE London School of Economics and Political Science MANUS Manchester Area National Union of Students M.Ed. Master of Education M.Sc. Master of Science NAG Nursery Action Group NALGO National and Local Government Officers Association NUM National Union of Mineworkers NUPE National Union of Public Employees 1 Abbreviations PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page ix NUS National Union of Students OBE Order of the British Empire OPSA Owens Park Students Association PBA Proceedings of the British Academy Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy PREST Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology SALS South Africa Liberation Society SDP Social Democratic Party SERC Science and Engineering Research Council THES Times Higher Educational Supplement TLS Times Literary Supplement UCCA Universities Central Council for Admissions UFC Universities Funding Council UGC University Grants Committee UKAEA United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority UMIST University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology x Abbreviations PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page x This book is a sequel to the History of the University of Manchester 1951–73 , published by Manchester University Press in 2000. It takes up the principal themes of the work at the point at which Manchester, like most British universities, was beginning to encounter grave finan- cial problems and to lose confidence in the sympathy and support both of the Government and of public opinion. This second volume is designed to be read on its own, without the need to refer back repeat- edly to its predecessor. Some readers, however, may like to be reminded at the outset of a few important facts, that the story may be easier to follow. The University of Manchester descended from a small local institu- tion, Owens College, founded in 1851 by the will of a Manchester merchant; the name Owens was sometimes used, even in the late twentieth century, to mean all parts of the University other than the Faculty of Technology, which was housed in UMIST, the former Tech- nical College. Between the 1930s and the 1970s the University almost quadrupled the number of its students, which rose from about 2,700 to as many as 10,000 undergraduates and postgraduates. Together with other universities it strove to increase the number of graduates in the country, both for the sake of social justice and to meet the needs of the nation, as politicians defined them, particularly for scientists and engineers. Expansion led to a greater dependence on public money and to more insistent demands that universities should account for the ways in which they spent it. As the university system grew in the 1960s, Manchester could no longer take its old pre-eminence for granted: it began to encounter many more rivals and to lose a large proportion of its experienced staff to less strongly traditional institutions. It struggled to overhaul its own legislative and administrative structures, which could not immediately respond to the growing numbers of staff and students; a revised version of the University charter and statutes passed into law 1 Preliminary note PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page xi early in 1973, and, although the new document did not (as many had hoped) undermine the old professorial hierarchy, it did establish ample consultative machinery. The University also strove to contain the unrest of students who no longer regarded access to higher edu- cation as a privilege and were inclined to see the University as an instrument of the Government and a servant of a capitalist economy. From 1970 the Vice-Chancellor was Arthur Armitage, a magisterial and pragmatic lawyer who had been President of Queens’ College and taken his turn as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. He was appointed as plain Mr Armitage, Cambridge graduate and barris- ter-at-law, but hastily dignified before his arrival by an honorary Doc- torate of Laws bestowed by fiat of Manchester’s Chancellor, the Duke of Devonshire. Armitage was knighted in 1975, after his election as Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. He was flanked by several experienced administrators who had made their careers in Manchester, including the Registrar, Vincent Knowles (the constitutional authority and senior civil servant), and the University Librarian, Fred Ratcliffe. As were many ‘civic’, ‘provincial’, ‘red brick’ or ‘modern’ universi- ties, the University of Manchester was governed by a Council, which looked after its fabric and finances and employed its staff, and a Senate, which was the supreme academic body. Council consisted of a majority of lay members, most of whom were prominent figures in the city and the region, and were engaged in business or the professions, and of a minority of academics. Between 1972 and 1980 the Chairman of Council was Mr (later Sir) George Kenyon, an engineer and industrial- ist who manufactured ropes and had many other business interests. Senate was composed of a majority of professors and of a minority of elected members, all of whom were drawn from the teaching staff of the University. The lay Chairman of Council and the Treasurer, together with the Vice-Chancellor, Bursar and Registrar, exercised great influence from on high on the conduct of University affairs (‘the Registrar is responsible for committees and students and the Bursar is responsible for buildings and money’, explained the notes for new sec- retaries in the Vice-Chancellor’s office). As resources began to shrink and the generosity of governments to diminish, power lay to an increas- ing extent with the Joint Committee for University Development (JCUD), so-called because it brought together the authority of Senate and that of Council. Ultimate sovereignty within the University lay in theory with the large and usually passive Court of Governors, whose title was shortened to ‘Court’ in the new charter of 1973. Traditionally, xii Preliminary note PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page xii this was a device for interesting prominent local people in the Univer- sity. Court provided a responsible body to which the University would have on occasion to explain itself, and whose approval it would have to seek when proposing major legislative changes. Preliminary note xiii PRELIMS 26/9/03 8:46 am Page xiii chap 1 23/9/03 1:14 pm Page xiv I The 1970s chap 1 23/9/03 1:14 pm Page 1 chap 1 23/9/03 1:14 pm Page 2 In 1973 the finances of most British universities lay at the mercy of politicians and were subject to capricious cuts in public spending. Their precarious situation was a consequence of the state-financed expansion of the previous decades. What taxpayers gave, their elected representatives could pare and trim when the economy wilted and crisis loomed. In the midst of high inflation both Conservative and Labour governments failed to compensate universities for increases in the cost of living and forced them to scrimp and save whenever opportunities arose. Until 1977 three quarters of the annual income of the University of Manchester consisted of a block recurrent grant given for general purposes, together with a much smaller sum earmarked for equipment and furniture. These payments came from a sum voted by Parliament, allocated to universities in general by the Department of Education and Science, and distributed to individual universities by the Univer- sity Grants Committee (UGC). The University was free to use most of the block grant as it chose, assigning various sums at its discretion to central services, faculties, academic departments, and other undertak- ings. Some of the remaining quarter of the University’s revenue sprang from tuition and other fees. Like the block grant, most of these came from the public purse, but arrived by another route, for they were paid on behalf of United Kingdom undergraduates by their local education authorities. They did not depend solely on the rates, for local author- ities would eventually recover from central funds most of the money they had paid out. Other sources of income included research con- tracts (most of them awarded by government departments and a few by industrial concerns), and the proceeds of a large and complex investment portfolio, which served, for example, to fund the pension scheme for non-academic staff. To finance costly building projects such as libraries, lecture rooms and laboratories which did not directly produce income, the University 1 Uncertainty, economy and improvisation chap 1 23/9/03 1:14 pm Page 3 looked to the UGC for capital grants. Plans to build student flats, how- ever, were financed only in part by the UGC. They now depended in large measure on loans taken out in the open market from banks, building societies and insurance companies, and serviced by the rents which students paid for the privilege of occupying the premises. Approximately three quarters of the University’s expenditure was on salaries and wages. Much of the remainder was devoted to heating, lighting, watering, and generally maintaining premises and equipment. Sharp reductions in the real value of income from public sources, and the Government’s reluctance or failure to cover the salary settlements awarded to employees, were certain to have grave consequences for the University. It was in no position to solve its problems by laying off part of its workforce or sacking redundant executives. But the Univer- sity could not afford to accumulate a deficit which it had no means of clearing away. At the end of 1973 Edward Heath’s administration withdrew guar- antees that the Government would protect the finances of universities against the effects of inflation. No more would it proclaim itself ready to look with sympathy upon their plight. Anthony Barber, the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, reduced university income from parliamen- tary grants by about 10 per cent. In February 1974 Arthur Armitage, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, described these measures as the severest cuts in living memory. Interpreting the figures for the University Council and Senate, he estimated that the Univer- sity was about to lose £800,000 from the income which it had antici- pated receiving in the current academical year. He appeared to be forecasting a reduction of about 5 per cent in expected cash, for the University’s income from all sources was then in the region of £18.5m. and was to rise to almost £22m. in the next session. In the light of later events, the cuts of 1973 may not seem cataclysmic. But they wiped out the reserves set aside for future developments, and were accom- panied by other, much harsher reductions in the funding of capital projects. These made it necessary to cancel or postpone, sometimes for many years, important parts of the building programme which the University had planned. In the wake of the Arab–Israeli war of October 1973, the oil- producing countries of the Middle East had quadrupled the price of oil. The Brown Index, an economist’s tool employed to measure the cost of items which figured prominently in university expenditure, pointed to a price rise of about 10 per cent between January 1973 and January 1974. By November 1974 the rate of inflation had doubled, 4 The 1970s chap 1 23/9/03 1:14 pm Page 4 and the University was facing a deficit of about £1m. According to John Carswell, some time secretary to the UGC, ‘the shock, not only of a 10 per cent cut but of the breach between the universities and the state – the revelation that the traditional special relationship need not be respected – was shattering’. In 1973, then, came one of the great turning points in British university history, a transition into a bleaker world governed by the principles of uncertainty, economy and improvisation. The prevailing gloom, however, occasionally gave way to spells of optimism, to a mis- placed sense that the worst must be over. Unfulfilled ambitions, hatched in the late 1960s, still dominated the University’s plans and maintained their places at the head of lists; until these priorities had been met it would prove difficult to develop new programmes. Planners still expected that the number of students – particularly undergraduates – would go on increasing at least until the early or mid-1980s. Only then would the number of eighteen-year-olds in the British population cease to grow. Greater numbers would bring in more fees, but fees covered only part of the cost of students’ courses, which were heavily sub- sidised; the University could not rely on receiving full compensation for the growth in its numbers. Research was to suffer more gravely than teaching, and science and medicine would feel most keenly the effects of shrinkage in the equip- ment grant. Cuts were falling at precisely the time when apparatus installed in the prosperous 1960s was becoming obsolete; the Faculty of Science usually absorbed 60 per cent of this grant, the Faculty of Medicine about 20 per cent. There was reason to remember Ruther- ford’s dictum, ‘Gentlemen, we have no money, therefore we shall have to use our brains’, though such words were less likely to console scientists who had once enjoyed ample funds and now saw them taken away. Almost entirely lost was the capacity for mapping the University’s future for more than a year or two ahead; indeed, the ‘planning hori- zon’, as the UGC liked to call it, was now obscured, and Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, then the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, called it ‘a mirage across quicksands’. Far from being known at the outset, grants were sometimes dispensed in instalments during the university year. Once they had been predicted with reasonable certainty five years in advance, under the old system of quinquennial planning which still survived in theory in the 1970s and had not been formally abolished. New uncertainties arose when, from 1977, a larger proportion of the University’s income began to depend on tuition fees. No-one could be Uncertainty, economy and improvisation 5 chap 1 23/9/03 1:14 pm Page 5