Over the course of a cold February week two
Glasgow campuses emerged at the forefront of the wave of occupations that is
currently engulfing universities across Britain and, in the process, transforming
their political atmospheres. Strathclyde and Glasgow University were both
occupied, with the occupiers protesting about the Israeli onslaught on Gaza and
their universities’ links with arms companies that were complicit in the
offensive.
Strathclyde students occupied their
university’s finance office on February 4th after a demonstration of
approximately eighty students gave a set of demands to the principal. This came
in spite of facing hostility form university security, who physically barred
and attacked students in order to prevent them from entering the space. The occupiers were quickly reinforced by a
protest rally outside, that included students from Glasgow University and other
activists. There was also support from lecturers
organised in the union UCU at Strathclyde.
As the occupation developed it became clear
that it had widespread support on campus, with a protest rally the next day
seeing approximately fifty students and staff in attendance. The rally was addressed by students from the
occupation and representatives from the UCU amongst others. After the rally those in attendance were
welcomed into the occupation, strengthening the resolve of the occupiers and
forcing concessions from management in negotiations that followed. As a result
of these negotiations the occupation ended on a high with the occupiers
declaring an initial victory and vowing to go on with further action.
The Glasgow University occupation proved to
be a somewhat more gruelling experience for those involved, as it spanned over
three days, and faced a far harsher management regime. Glasgow students entered their occupation on
February 9th following a dismissive and patronising response to
demands that they had submitted to the principal of the university four days
previously. Students occupied the top
floor of the computer science building on the grounds that its construction had
been financed by BAE systems. This is a weapons company which by its own
admission has a “special relationship” with Glasgow University, and has also
been complicit in building the arsenals which the Israeli state has used in its
barbarous assault on Gaza.
Throughout the occupation management
treated the occupiers with contempt. This went to the length of telling lies,
including at one point offering the occupiers the opportunity to send two of
their number outside to get food with a guarantee they could re-enter – only
for them to find themselves barred from the occupation when they tried to do
so. Glasgow’s principal Sir Muir Russell, the infamous architect of the poll
tax, earns over half a million pounds a year yet obviously this trifling sum is
not enough for him to maintain accountability. Throughout the occupation he
refused to address the occupiers, and it was only well into the second day of
the occupation that any form of effective negotiation was offered. Unlike at
Strathclyde the occupiers at Glasgow were refused freedom of access to the
building in what was effectively an attempt to force an end to the occupation.
The occupation was not broken however and only ended on its third day following
negotiations with management.
The occupants also faced a fifth column in
the form of so-called ‘counter protestors’ who engaged in an ineffective but
noisy campaign of slander. Using the internet and through the spreading of
rumours and putting up posters this minority group of right wing students
accused the occupants of being racist, anti-semitic and violent, none of which
is true. They were sponsored by certain
elements of management staff, one of
whom fed them rumours that the occupiers had shouted “Jews out of Europe” from
their megaphones. Ultimately the ‘counter protestors’ proved to be little more
than an annoyance. However the fact that university security allowed them to
stand with signs reading ‘It’s all the Jews’ fault’ whilst standing beside
those supporting the occupation outside; clearly an attempt at goading them
into a fight, makes clear that, contrary to the university’s claims, they are
not politically neutral.
It was the support of the student body that
maintained pressure on the university management. The occupation was built
around by supporters on the campus that included students from Glasgow and
Strathclyde. Days two and three of the occupation saw rallies of sixty and
seventy students that were again addressed by UCU members, local councillors and
students from Glasgow and the Strathclyde occupation. The occupiers’ morale was bolstered
considerably by the support their actions were given by Glasgow Council care
support staff, who have been on strike since early November. The workers came
to the university and made it clear they supported the actions in solidarity
with the oppressed Palestinian masses. Both of the occupations also received
international support. Strathclyde received an endorsement from an Indian
academic, who made a phone call to the students to wish them success, whilst at
Glasgow an e-mail of solidarity was received from the Islamic University of
Gaza thanking the students for their action.
The occupations proved the clichéd maxim that
those who dare to fight dare to win. At Strathclyde the occupation led to the
cancelling of the university’s contract with the water company Eden Springs who
illegally distil water from the occupied Golan Heights, the publicising of the
DEC Gaza Crisis Emergency Appeal which the BBC still refuses to show, scholarships
initially for one to three Palestinian students, re-established links with the
University of Gaza and the denial of any links with BAE aside from one £5,000
scholarship – although this is now being looked into by the occupiers. At
Glasgow the students also won the establishment of links with the University of
Gaza through the University looking to send it material aid, the beginnings of
a scholarship scheme for Palestinian students, the highlighting of the DEC
appeal – all lecturers are to be asked to show it – and an agreement to have a
full information enquiry into the University’s assets and their connections
with arms companies.
Glasgow’s demands also included the
complete boycott of Israeli companies and academics that have not completely
disassociated themselves from the aggressive actions of the Israeli military.
Such action’s political usefulness is debatable and would appear not to analyse
the conflict along class lines, effectively seeing all Israelis as one national
bloc. The danger of pursuing such a policy is to make this a reality by
refusing to appeal to the Israeli working class.
The occupation was just the beginning of
the struggles against the links between the universities and arms companies.
That our universities are placed of public learning and should not be centres
for the military benefit of imperialism was a sentiment shared by all in the
occupation. This also raised wider questions of the need for proper public
funding for education and an end to the involvement of private companies in
education. Both campuses have been politically polarised as a result of the
occupations. At the current time Glasgow University faces losing its health
services and the care workers remain on strike whilst Glasgow City Council is
threatening to shut down thirteen primary schools and facing resistance as a
result. These occupations were part of the emergence of a far larger political
struggle that is seeing the traditions of Red Clydeside come to the fore once
again.
