Conclusion

There are further examples, but the lesson is clear. In the four examples where the "correct channels" of student reps within the power structure were followed, the results were disastrous. In those where direct discussion and action were taken something happened. The conclusion: if students are pissed off with something, students must organise within the course, with leaders showing the best methods of working together. If students aren't sufficiently angry to do anything themselves, student reps really haven't any mandate to do anything either. In both cases, student reps are superfluous and misleading.

Thus, both from analysis of the structure and from experience we get the same answer. Let us remember: the University is a power system in a society based on power and the control of underlings. Any concessions that we might get within this framework do not at all challenge the framework. In fact, they strengthen it by creating the myth that real change is possible. Experience - in the impotence of the workloads committee, in the failure to abide by university assessment procedures - backs up the idea that concessions are minimal.