Discard Your Placards: Student Protests Twenty-First Century Style

The culture of being a student has changed a great deal over the last forty years. Some things, however, have remained the same: the general lifestyle of sex drugs and rock and roll is one of them. Some things have disappeared completely: certain fashion trends are best consigned to the history books.

And some things, such as student protests, have evolved and morphed in appearance. Students are no longer prepared to march through the streets of major cities to get what they want, as was standard procedure during the 1960’s.

Back then, student protests spoke not only on behalf of students. The Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement provided students in the United States with multiple opportunities to take to the streets in the name of public opinion. As the war in Vietnam spread into neighbouring Cambodia in 1970, American campuses erupted with protests, in what Time magazine called “a nation-wide student strike”.

More recently, the pending war in Iraq brought out many anti-war protestors all over the world in 2003. Capital cities were jammed with people of all ages who were opposed to the forth-coming military invasion. In Rome, three million people gathered in what the Guinness Book of Records lists as the largest ever anti-war rally.

So on an international level, traditional protests and demonstrations remain as vibrant as ever.

On a more local level, however, the turnout was not so promising. The demonstrations in Manchester on March 19 2003 began with just 300 students; some were secondary school students, and others were in further education. By the time the march reached the BBC studios, the numbers had swelled to a still-disappointing 1,000. The figures are staggeringly small when we take into account the size of the University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University, and all the students here in nearby Liverpool.

Yet the student conscience remains in tact.

The protests and demonstrations may not be as visible as with previous generations of students, but the causes for which we should fight are still there.

Since the sixties, the battleground has shifted. Cyberspace is the new realm of protest.

The biggest issue concerning students in recent years has been the introduction of top-up fees. The thought of paying tuition fees of up to £3,000 shocked many students at my level of study. I myself am a third year student, and the last to gain a degree without paying the increased fees. I, admittedly, was one of 10,000 students who failed to turn out for a demonstration in London in late 2006.

On the face of it, it might seem as if student protests are dying out.

The “march” against top-up fees on October 29, 2006 turned out to be more of a gentle waddle for those who turned up. It was a leisurely and peaceful stroll through the capital, taking in the sights along the way.

But students still care. And students still protest for what they believe in.

Despite the government ignoring the demonstrations against an invasion of Iraq, and despite the introduction of increased tuition fees, protests are still an integral part of student life. The success rate may not be anything close to 100%, but students should not desire it to be. Protests are about standing up and speaking out with regard to the issues you are concerned about. They are about making people aware of matters they might know little of.


With the creation of social networking sites such as Facebook, students can do this without getting up at 05:30 in the morning, sitting for hours on a coach down to London, walking through cold, damp streets, and getting back home some time after midnight. Why should students do this when they can make themselves heard “from the comfort of their swivel chairs”, as one commentator recently put it? What is most advantageous is that students can speak out on “minority” issues that perhaps would not merit marches through cities, but matter nonetheless.

Despite the creation of numerous groups on Facebook stating their opposition to tuition fees, the dreaded Higher Education Bill still became law. So cyber protests aren’t as effective as the old methods?

The bank HSBC would beg to differ.

Prior to the start of the 2007 / 08 academic year, they announced plans to abolish interest-free overdrafts for students who had recently graduated. Students, being understandably outraged, discarded their placards and logged on to the Internet instead. The creation of a group on Facebook quickly attracted over 5,000 members from all over the world, and forced HSBC into an embarrassing u-turn. The world’s local bank was undone by a global student protest group. There wasn’t a placard in sight.

One of the more subtle changes, though, concerns the issues which before the age of the Internet might have gone untouched.

It was in my hometown that Garry Newlove perished at the white Reeboks of Warrington scum. His death shocked the nation, and the sentencing of his murderers has been considered by many to be too lenient. The result has been the creation of the Facebook group “RIP Garry Newlove - Time to reclaim our streets”.

Promoting itself as the “official launch of the “New Love” campaign”, the group calls for action with regard to yobs in Britain. 2,000 Facebook users have already given their digital signature and backing to the campaign, and the number is likely to rise in coming weeks and months. This particular group is typical of many others on Facebook and the Internet in general: while it is an expression of grief, it is also a platform for change and betterment in society.

So what does the future hold for student protests?

March 15 marks the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and a national demonstration is scheduled to make its way through the streets of London. Organisers are hopeful of a turnout in excess of 10,000, but don’t bet your house on it. As this goes to print, students in Manchester are demonstrating on February 15 to mark the demonstrations of February 15 2003; a funeral procession is, as I write, making its way from the student union to the nearest Army recruitment centre.

It looks as if the big marches through the world’s cities will continue, but in close conjunction with the social networking sites on the Internet. The ability for organisers to contact thousands of students within seconds has the potential to make future demonstrations even bigger and even louder than in previous decades. The danger, however, is what could be perceived as apathy. Joining the group is one thing, and it does make a difference. Joining the march is quite another.

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright

The Meaning of Whiteness and Immigration

As the BBC prepares to air a series of television programmes concerned with the supposed alienation of the white working class, a definition of whiteness and what it is to be white in Britain in the 21st century will emerge. Judging by last night's farcical debate on Newsnight, the satisfaction of such a definition is likely to be debatable.

It is not my intention to define whiteness in Britain in the 21st century just yet; for the moment, I'll leave that to more established scholars, academics, commentators &c. to grapple with, before offering my opinion. Prior to my hearing about the BBC's forthcoming programmes on whiteness, I submitted a features article to my newspaper (scheduled to be published this coming Monday (March 10 2008)) with regard to immigration, under the title "The Linguistics Barrier of Immigration: Breaking Social Segregation Along Lines of Language". For the benefit of persons who are not students in Liverpool, and don't have access to a hard copy of LX News, the article, which I consider to be more of an editorial, is reproduced here. As usual, all comments are welcome:

The issue of immigration into the U.K. is constantly on-going. It seems every other week the government is announcing a new initiative to help people who have arrived in the country from less developed nations. Migration into the U.K. from Asia and Africa has been added to in recent years by people entering the country from new European Union member states such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

One of the most noticeable results is a sharp increase in the number of languages now spoken here. In towns and cities across the U.K. languages as diverse as Tamil, Hindi, Cantonese and Telugu (how many native British people have even heard of that last one?) are regularly spoken amongst the various ethnic groups. Somewhat worryingly, it is estimated that 70% of people living in Britain speak English monolingually. With so many other languages comprising the other 30%, the inevitable consequence is social segregation along lines of language.

Change is necessary. There has to be a sharp linguistic shift in coming years, otherwise the small communities currently being forced -- by linguistic barriers -- to keep themselves to themselves will be isolated. The growth of completely separate societies in British cities is simply not compatible with national unity. A national identity cannot be forged in this way.

The national media constantly stresses what it is to be British. The traditional definition is no longer a viable one. I personally doubt that it ever was. One of the first things people point to is the language. The “to be British is to speak English” mentality is a naïve one at best. It negates the marginal languages of Cornish, Gaelic, Irish and Welsh, even though the people who speak these languages (monolingually or otherwise) are accepted as being “British”.

The cultural benefits of having people from different parts of the world living in the U.K. do not, hopefully, need to be explained. Their varying customs and traditions all contribute to what it is to be British in the 21st century. Furthermore, they compliment the Anglo Saxon customs which have existed here for many centuries, and make Britain a richer place to live.

For the full cultural benefits to be reaped, however, the linguistic barriers which are currently in place need to be broken down.

As part of broad citizenship tests, the government announced last month that the testing of migrants’ English language skills would be one of many tests for migrants to “prove their worth”.

At the same time, the availability of English lessons to new migrants is falling. Being able to communicate meaningfully in English is an important skill, but it should not be made compulsory as part of a process to achieve official citizenship status. If English was strongly recommended to new migrants, and benefits were given to migrants who achieved a certain level of ability in English, then socially at least the tension could be eased between communities. By making English compulsory, the government makes it appear that the mother tongue of the migrant, which they have spoken since birth, is not welcome in the U.K. Such unnecessary hostility from the government only heightens tensions and increases the alienation of the communities.

By learning to read and write English, the migrant does not lose anything. The migrant is still able to communicate with people from their country of origin in their original language, but the addition of English means they can participate in activities outside their own community. The English language, it should be remembered, does not replace in any way the original language of the migrant. The migrant can only benefit from learning English, and the benefits are multiplied by the fact that English remains one of the most widely spoken languages in the world.

Many students from abroad who study at U.K. universities usually have either a good or excellent understanding of English when they arrive in Britain. To speak on a general level, the foreign student community is a good example of the possibilities of migrants having knowledge of English in addition to their mother tongue. In lectures and seminars, foreign students more often than not display a brilliant command of the English language, sometimes putting people of Anglo Saxon blood to shame.

Once they are out of that formal situation, though, they often revert to their first language. I spend a lot of time on the lower ground floor of the Aldham Robarts LRC at John Moores University, and it is fascinating to hear students communicate in such an array of languages.

Yet the hypocrisy of the Anglo Saxon mentality scars relations between white British people and immigrants from foreign lands.

There is a general consensus that migrants should learn English if they want to live here for any period of time. Yet in places such as Benidorm, Torremolinos and the Algarve there are large British Ex-patriot communities that thrive in isolation from the rest of the place. You can walk through the streets and see shops marketing “traditional British fish & chips,” and ale houses boasting to be “traditional Great British pubs”. The people who live there are all English. The only language they speak is English. The vast majority usually have only a rudimentary understanding of Spanish or Portuguese, Moreover, if you want to meet a Spanish or Portuguese citizen, then you have to literally take a bus ride to another part of town. The double standard is shocking.

A future national identity rests upon the banishing of the language barrier. Once it has been eradicated, migrants will find it easier to understand “British” customs and the “British” way of life. Whether or not British natives will ever adapt in order to understand the culture of migrants’ homelands remains to be seen.

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright