Imperial College Union to campaign for tuition fees in newly passed policy
Opposing paper, to campaign for Free Education, was rejected
Council’s session on Tuesday 9th was dominated by the motion of No Confidence against the ICURFC Club Captain, but the new Higher Education Funding Policy which was passed will probably have even wider implications.
‘Higher Education Funding’ as a term relates primarily to tuition fees and who pays them, but also comprises cost of living at University, which is especially relevant to London-based institutions such as Imperial. Naturally, it is considered one of the most important aspects of student-based politics and therefore one of the most important items of student union’s political agenda.
The previous Higher Education Funding Policy lapsed on 31st July 2014 (Union policies automatically expire after three years), so for over four months Imperial College Union had no official stance on Higher Education Funding: many on Council reportedly found this concerning. It was also considered imperative that a policy be decided before the end of term, so that campaigning can begin well before the general election in May 2015.
The two papers up for discussion at the meeting, one proposed by DPFS Alex Savell and one proposed by Natural Sciences PG Ordinary Member Andrew Tranter, were not significantly different from those tabled at the inquorate General Meeting conducted on Monday 1st December.
Savell’s paper referred to the recommendations made in the HEF Survey Analysis, which can be read on the Union website. The main campaign objectives were: to reverse the increase in tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000 per year, to reduce marketisation of higher education, to introduce regulation of Overseas and Postgraduate course fees, and to increase the amount of government support (loans and grants) given to address cost of living.
Tranter’s proposal called on the Union to “support and actively campaign for free, funded, and accessible higher education” and called on the Union to “condemn” tuition fee rises and increasing marketisation of universities in addition to campaigning against them.
The five resolutions were voted on separately: two which would have changed the Union’s stance to a pro-free-education one failed, and three which strengthened the language used in Savell’s paper passed.
“I’m pleased that we have a policy that is reflective of the views of students”, says Savell. “We have a position to work from and can enlist Union staff support.”
When asked about the role of Imperial College itself, he said: “where they agree with us, College will help”, but that there are some areas of “inevitable conflict”. “That’s why we have a students’ union!” Imperial’s management style is often criticised as being overly commercial, Savell explains that this is due to the “unfair system” of marketisation: “We want structural change.”
ICU’s new policy is unusual for a student union policy in that it does not call for scrapping tuition fees. “Historically, I believe that we are one of the more conservative student unions”, explains Savell. “But we’re definitely less conservative than the Conservative Party!” Savell believes that the policy could still gain traction with Conservative parliamentary candidates: “Imperial students comprise future business leaders….people with considerable economic impact. These are the sort of people the Conservatives target.”
Union staff and Officer Trustees will be meeting today (Friday) to discuss the next specific steps of the campaign. The Union will be looking to “engage the student population and get them active”, but Savell stresses that campaign efforts will go ahead even in the case of a lukewarm response from the student body: “They’ve told us what they want, and it’s our job to go and implement it.”
