A pathetic generation?
It was certainly nothing if not surprising. One is now so used to Oxford students taking an apathetic view to all but the most pressing matters of self-interest that the occupation of the Examinations Schools on 27th January genuinely had to be seen to be believed. Yet there it was - student militancy, live and in the flesh.
Since its heyday during the 70s and early 80s, student militancy has been on the wane in Britain. There was once a time when the slightest attempt by university staff to increase students' workloads would likely have resulted in a full-scale invasion of the SCR. Nowadays, even rent hikes of up to 40 per cent result only in half-hearted, and often divided, campaigns of opposition.
Of course, Oxford has never been top of the pile when it comes to active student bodies. The traditional nature of the place, as well as the sheer amount of work most of us have to get through each week, hardly provides the ideal climate for radical, organised militancy to blossom. After all, no self-respecting 'leftie' would be seen dead in a gown.
Yet it just takes a brief comparison with other student bodies around the globe to conclude that British students in general are shamefully passive. In Germany, for example, student activism recently forced Chancellor Schroeder to cancel a number of promotional engagements in Leipzig (host of the country's 2012 Olympic bid), whilst it is students who are at the forefront of the push for democracy in countries from Iran to China. In Britain, meanwhile, the government can introduce a market into education, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of students will keep shtum. Why are we so apathetic?
Cultural factors probably play a part. There was a time when being of a radically left-wing political persuasion was a necessary precondition to becoming a student. Anyone daring to question the notion that Margaret Thatcher was Satan personified risked being socially ostracised. Activism was trendy.
This is simply no longer the case. 'Irony' (inverted commas mandatory) has supplanted radicalism as the student mindset-of-choice, with Che Guevara losing out to Rolf Harris when it comes to T-shirt sales. It is even acceptable to hold both NUS and Tory party membership cards. Perhaps student activism has simply fallen victim to fashion trends.
It also has to be said that, on both a global and national level, there exists far less of a major ideological debate today in which students could become passionately involved. Whilst the Bush regime has clearly inspired a great deal of opposition in the UK, it is hard for this to be converted into a sustained, mass student movement, and any such movement could only survive as long as Bush himself is in power, and - in lacking any alternative - could be seen as futile and destructive.
In some individual countries, major ideological debates, in particular over democratic freedoms, do exist, and student activism duly plays its part for one side or the other. Who could forget Tiananmen Square? Within Britain, however, political debate takes place within a relatively narrow, post-Thatcherite consensus. There is little to get passionate about.
Perhaps the most significant factor in the decline of militancy, though, has been the change in status of a university education in recent decades. It used to be the case that possessing a degree was useful for getting a decent job, but by no means necessary. It was certainly not unknown for firms' top jobs to go to individuals who had worked their way up from a tea boy since leaving school. Thus, many people attended university solely because they were attracted to the student lifestyle - radicalism and all. Today it is merely a stepping-stone on the
way to a job - indeed, to some a necessary evil. Radical activism now represents for many an unwelcome distraction from the important task of securing a job in the City. A far wider range of political views are present in UK universities today.
This would be damaging enough for the prospects of radical action in itself, since clearly a student body that contains a high proportion of Conservative sympathisers is hardly likely to be vocal on, say, the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Yet the effects are doubly significant when the impact on student unions is taken into account. The NUS in particular is increasingly finding it difficult to square a natural desire for a powerful, active student body with the fact that the views of its members are so diverse. Even the current anti-fees campaign has hardly seemed united or powerful, with many students opposed to the line taken by the NUS - thus weakening its stance. For many, the union has become little more than a convenient way to get CD discounts.
Is it a problem - do we need a powerful student body? Most would argue that we do, not just for the sake of furthering the direct interests of students, but also to potentially inject some fresh air into the stale climate that is political debate in this country at present. Can this be achieved?
Possibly, but it will take major change to bring it about. The NUS, and local student unions, will have to accept sooner or later that they cannot exist as an effective organisation whilst seeking to please all students all of the time.
Rather than the present situation, whereby all students whose university or college is affiliated to the NUS automatically become members themselves, membership should become voluntary - subject to an acceptance of (or a desire to change) the existing views and campaigns of the elected executive. There would thus no longer exist a prevailing desire not to offend amongst NUS leaders, who could seek to inspire genuine militancy, if felt necessary, amongst a narrower student body whose loyalty would be far more assured.
The success of Labour's Higher Education Bill has shown the student body to be weak and ineffective in the United Kingdom. The only way this can be changed is through major reform of student unions - from the NUS downwards.
12th Feb 2004