THE TROUBLES CONTINUE

­ edited highlights of the University of Essex, Part 3, by Graham Burton

In protest at these punishments, almost two thirds of the student body went on strike, and pickets were set up outside the Lecture Theatre Building. Later, some of the students lit a bonfire in square four, and the fire brigade was called because of fears that there was an underground gas main directly below the fire. When the fire brigade arrived and explained the situation, the students put the fire out themselves, and lit another one at the other end of the square. The firemen then tried to clear a way through to the new fire by firing a hose through the crowd, but were overpowered by about five students who then turned the hose on the firemen, forcing them to run away. Eventually the firemen gave up and went back to the fire station, later finding a small cut in one of the hoses, although the cause of this was unclear.

During the coal miners' strikes in the seventies and eighties, the government tried to get round the strikes by importing coal from abroad using small, non-union ports, including Wivenhoe. Students at Essex actively supported the protests, providing accommodation for hundreds of miners who travelled down from all over the country, and joining them as they picketed the port. At the height of the strike in the 1984, a line of police stretched from the university entrance to Wivenhoe port in an attempt to protect any of the coal-trucks from being picketed, while it was rumoured that Albert Sloman had received a telegram from Margaret Thatcher threatening the university with closure unless all the miners were removed from university premises.

The incident lead to hysteria in the press, with papers talking of Essex hooligans fighting with firemen, and the malicious "slashing" of one of the hoses. The Daily Telegraph ran a story entitled "Campus Freedom Plan Crashes in Wave of Violence", describing a university where violence and vandalism were commonplace, and where 'pot parties' were held daily in the towers. In the same edition a leader article entitled "Anarchy at Essex" fumed about the "disgraceful disturbances", blamed the university authorities for giving students too much freedom, and demanded an immediate enquiry. The articles brought an angry response from the university, who described the first as a "ludicrous caricature of life on the campus."

The next couple of years were relatively calm, although not exactly settled, and the university put forward plans to increase student numbers. In February 1973 the Students' Union reaffiliated with the NUS, which was gradually becoming more radical. Sick of negotiating and getting nowhere over issues of falling grants and high rents, the NUS called for a 'National Day of Action' on 15th November, with protests and rent strikes. Around 300 students from the university and some local colleges marched through Colchester, and once again a picket was set up outside the LTB, forcing lectures to be abandoned. But all in all, things seemed under control. Over the weekend, however, a group of students were busy planning the next move, and on the following Monday evening around thirty students invaded the administration block, barricaded themselves in, and issued three demands ­ a 15% drop in catering prices, a 55% drop in rent for the off-campus accommodation, and assurances that accommodation and catering facilities would be expanded to cope with the planned expansion.

The university's response was to obtain a High Court Order for repossession of the building ­ Vice Chancellor Albert Sloman later claimed the response was so strong only because confidential files were being broken into and the master keys to the university had been taken. But the decision backfired ­ the next day a mass meeting of 800 students voted to continue the occupation, and also to hand over control of union decisions to the occupiers. A week later the sit-in was still going strong, and 500 students marched into Colchester; meanwhile, at the University of East Anglia students held their own sit-in, occupying the arts block to show their solidarity with the Essex protestors. The next day the heating was turned off in the occupied buildings, and the a further sit-in began at the Hexagon.

While everyone waited nervously for the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings in February 1974, there was a bit of comic relief when when a Fiat was found dumped in the old Square Four fountains; it was apparently a prank for someone's birthday. No-one could work out quite how those responsible had managed it. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have taken a photo either.

The occupation ended after nearly a month, without agreement between the university and the students. Although progress had been made on the initial demands, the sticking point was the issue of non-victimisation ­ the authorities refused to guarantee that individuals wouldn't be punished. They saw the sit-in as an act of a small group of students, rather than a collective decision, despite the fact that 800 students had voted to support the occupation. The protestors left a letter at Sloman's house threatening further action, while the university sent out letters to thirty-seven of the protestors, saying that they would be disciplined.

At the end of the February 1974 the first student was found guilty by the disciplinary committee, and given a suspended expulsion. In response, the Students' Union voted at a General Assembly to set up a 24-hour picket line with barricades to stop supplies getting into the university. The SU announced that the pickets would only be removed if disciplinary proceedings were dropped and an independent enquiry set up instead; Sloman refused. The picket was successful, being recognised by most of the delivery drivers, but in March the SU decided, after police advice, to bring it to an end. But, soon after, two more students were found guilty and expelled for a year with immediate effect, and in response the pickets returned. On the 18 March the police were called in, arresting fifteen of the picketers; once they left the picket continued. Two days later the police returned and began to make more arrests, but as news of this spread, reinforcements began to flood down from the towers. By the end of the day ninety people had been arrested, on top of those from the two days previously, and rumours spread that all the police cells in Essex were full, with the army on standby to move in. But still the picket remained, stronger than ever, and 1500 students marched on Colchester in protest at the arrests. Sloman eventually agreed to suspend deliveries for the day and things cooled down, but the picket continued until the exams. The punishments from the sit-in were eventually reduced, on appeal, to suspended expulsions and fines.

Throughout the protests, many academics were sympathetic to the students' cause; a motion brought forward during the sit-in to grant student amnesty was defeated by 133 votes to 43 ­ nearly a quarter of the voters going against the university line. Later there was a petition, signed by sixty staff, expressing sympathy with the students' demands, and suggesting that no disciplinary action be taken against them. The majority of staff were actually sympathetic towards the students' appeals for higher grants, if not their methods, but many of the younger, more radical staff were more actively involved in the protests, which lead to tension within the academic ranks. "The university believed that the duty of the staff was to be loyal to the institution", remembers Professor Ted Benton, a lecturer at the time, and still at Essex today. "But there was a consensus among younger staff to facilitate dialogue between the university and the students, and this was se en by some staff as siding with the students, as being disloyal." In particular Peter Townsend, Senior Professor in the Sociology Department, was strongly involved in the protests in both the 60s and 70s, and spoke to the students on megaphone during the picketing, helping to broker a deal between the students and the university.

Long-running BBC quiz-show University Challenge also felt the full force of Essex radicalism ­ one University of Essex team in the 1970s was disqualified for answering "Karl Marx" to every question.

Trouble at Essex continued into the eighties, with further pickets, strikes, and sit-ins at the poor old administration block, although nothing ever really approached the level of what had gone before. So why was Essex at the centre of so much unrest, and for so long? Of course, the issues being fought for, like grant levels, were important, but Essex also particular problems of its own. The adminstration was seen as inflexible, and defensive towards student radicalism; Sloman seemed to find it hard to cope with the practical realisation of his own original plans for the university. When the Day of Action came in 1973, despite the fact that he was very actively involved in trying to get the grant levels raised, Sloman didn't address the protestors to offer sympathy or explain what he was doing to help. There always seemed to be a distance between the students and the administration, not helped by the fact that there were was very little student representation in the senate and committees that run the university. Sit-ins also seemed to provide the kind of communal atmosphere that the students couldn't normally find ­ especially without their own SU building. The fact that the Essex campus was small seemed to increase the tension and make matters worse. Students also complained that some academic staff, many of whom commuted from London, were rarely in their offices, and were too concerned with research work, at the expensive of teaching. On top of all this were contemporary global issues; the Trade Union movement, the Vietnam War, the struggle for equal rights ­ all were going on not just as a backdrop to the students' protests, but as an inspiration. The university itself was created on ideas of radicalism and democracy, and the large numbers of young staff, and the large school of Social Sciences, encouraged free-thinking among both students and staff.

The hard-line that the university attempted to take probably also made matters worse. By severely punishing small groups of individuals for protests that the Student's Union always argued were decided on by the whole student body, the authorities only managed to bring the students closer and harden their resolve. Despite the pickets in 1974, Sloman steadfastly refused to suspend the disciplinary hearings, saying that he had not forgotten how doing so in the 1968 had caused "moral confusion" and had lead to the ringleaders escaping punishment (even though the senate at the time concluded that there were no ringleaders). But after every guilty verdict there were always appeals, followed by reductions in the punishments, which had the effect of both alienating the staff who supported the university line and allowing the protestors to claim victory. Perhaps if sentences were less harsh to start with, much of the trouble would have been avoided.

Despite its many problems, the university was still on its feet ­ there was never a mass walk-out of disenchanted staff or students, and Essex maintained its reputation as a small but successful research centre. But the protests undoubtedly damaged the university's reputation ­ Essex graduates were carefully vetted when applying to other universities, and some departments, particularly the sciences, found it hard to recruit students. In comparison, the social sciences thrived, due in no small part to the stimulation provided by the radicalism. All in all the student protests were traumatic, but undoubtedly a key part of the university's development.

Next month: The Aftermath

RETURN TO CONTENTS PAGE