Report and Comment on the Pols Departmental Meeting Held Last Wednesday

Last week's Political Science staff meeting was primarily concerned with the appointment of the new lecturer and the chairman's report on the matter. It was orginally intended to have full student representation at the meeting, but after consultation with the chairman (Dr Vasil) it was realised that nothing of value could be done by students to influence the choice of appointment, so a token gesture in the form of yours truly turned up.

Of the appointment, so little was said that I came away with the feeling that the meeting had been used as some form of rubber stamp. No recommendations were made, the meeting was not asked to discuss or recommend any candidate or particular characteristics of those chosen by the chairman and those he consulted (though there is apparently departmental procedure for this to be done). All that was said was that there were over 65 applicants, which was reduced to 17 'suitable' applicants, which was further cut down to a short of 8 'recommended' applicants (by the chairman and the executive) with a preference expressed for one.

Of that applicant, all is known is that he has teaching experience, high qualifications and fulfills the requirements laid down in the advertisement (comparitive politics, Western Europe).

What was important in the melee that followed was a feeling expressed that there was room for more discussion pertaining to appointment (within the boundaries of confidentiality placed upon the chairman by university regulations) than Doctor Vasil had allowed.

Apart from the appointment - several disturbing factors emerged from the meeting:

— The position of the Pols Sci Soc is heavily compromised by clauses which exlude its three votes from matters involving appointments (looks like we dipped out anyhow), Staff matters' & financial matters - so the question remains - What can we do?

— The majority of staff (all but the 3 female members of staff) have not undertaken any teaching 'refresher courses' such as those undertaken by Prof Clifts teaching research centre and have no intention to do so.

Pols Sci - Putting students in the right perspective

— The staff regards individual student opinions as lacking any credibility or integrity, especially in terms of their lack of 'experience' in Pols. I must point out to the department that if their ideas and approaches fail to hold water with students whose understanding of Pols is limited to undergraduate courses, one may regard their basic approach having limited credibility in itself.

Drs' Steven Levine and Margaret Clark were particularly volatile in their inquisitions and while their point: that individual students do not represent the mass; may be valid, such opinions may not be dismissed out of hand as they would have it done.

Dr Levine raised the point that students (and student newspapers) never say anything 'positive' about their courses and lecturers - so if you are happy with your lot - give them a pat on the head, maybe it will help them respond to criticism a little better.

There was one - only one - positive indication that students (and the Pols SCI Soc) may be treated with a bit more respect when the feeling was expressed that it may be a good thing to have a student rep. on the departmental executive - although this is obviously not the opinion of the chairman, Dr Vasil.

In a response to the request that the staff participate in debate accessable to more students (through Salient, etc), the answer remains no - with the excuse that it may harm the development of further rapport -I tend to disagree.

Any issue will not become apparent until there is an argument and a response so this refusal seems to me to be an irresponsible attempt to cloud the fact that alternatives exist.

After emerging battered and severely wounded from the meeting, I came to the conclusion that the only way students any students are to be taken seriously is to bring in large enough numbers to enforce any demands they may make. So maybe next year we can do something But thats what they said last year!

But next year will ge different - won't it?

So until it is better folks, it may be best to always go to the Pols department in groups - and carry a big stick.

- Neil Gray

Pols Sci Soc

This is a report of last weeks non-meeting workshop held to organise a course assessment program. Basically it was hoped to get together enough interested people to conduct a brief commentary on all this years Pols courses. The meeting attracted six people - not the masses hoped for, but at least its a start.

However, because of the lack of number available to assist it has been decided to restrict activities for the rest of the year to individual contributions (to Salient or to the Pols Sci Soc) which will be used as the basis for the Pols segment of Handbook.

So if you've got something to say about Pols courses, staff, or the department in general - have a talk to these people or drop a line to John Ryall at Salient.

It is important, if students are to be seriously regarded as a real part of the Pols department, that they participate in the department. Remember - the reputation of the Pols department rests upon what it does for its students.