In a group with Joel and Tilly during the afternoon part of the ‘Values and Ethics in Teaching’ session, I had one of the most inspiring conversation I’ve had, linking all of the issues discussed in the previous post and actually considering tangible ways of implementing change. We were the only 3 in the class to have chosen a doubtful approach to UAL’s social and climate justice principles. There are enormous limitations to creating meaningful and tangible change in a capitalist institution that operates on a business model. So we asked ourselves if it is possible to disrupt the system whilst within it. We came up with different levels of actions at different scales:

Access: Because of it’s price point, the university is an incredibly elitist institution. How can we position ourselves as champions of social and climate justice when the conversations we have and the knowledge we exchange is only accessible by the most privileged? Making all content open and accessible seems like an achievable step to widening the scope of the change we want to make. Linked to this is the lack of communication between courses in how they might be implementing the principles. Everyone is trying to do the work, but in silo. Surely there is a space here for sharing and exchange? 

Assessment: Because of it’s monetised nature, the university needs to prove it is relevant and needs to attract new students. This feels like the only possibly justification for graded assessment for creative courses: proving that the courses are doing well to justify their existence. However, as Neil Currant points out in his lecture: Compassionate Assessment, graded assessment is one of the biggest drawbacks to students producing creative and innovative work. It creates a culture of grade chasing that makes impossible the radical thinking necessary to develop solutions to the problem that we are in. 

Scale: considering the work that we produce at much wider scale. Individual efforts are important, but we operate in a system that itself is huge, and hugely problematic. There is a sense of urgency in making students and staff aware that we are part of an ecosystem and that everything we do has a wider impact not just geographically but also temporally. Yes, the students can implement change, yes teachers and courses can think of more sustainable approaches to teaching, but what about the university as an entity? What about the carbon footprint of moving LCC? What about the social injustice of moving to a new building that occupies a space that has been stolen from its community? What about this obsession for growth? Is that sustainable?

Critique: Rather than thinking about how we can bend the principles to fit the current system, maybe what needs to be done is create a new system all together. Joel discussed the notion of a cooperative model for university that would break-down all the hierarchies that make radical thinking impossible. This, I am excited about. How could we do this? John also mentioned the idea of a circular university that exists not only as a momentary experience but as a model that is weaved into professional practice and industry, and that can always be rethought and re-visited.