• Home
  • News
    • Live News
  • Comment
  • Features
  • Lifestyle
    • Fashion
    • Travel
    • Clive Cares
  • Culture
    • Music
    • Arts
    • Creative Writing
    • Film
    • TV
  • International
  • Science & Tech
    • Turf
    • Science
    • Gaming
  • Sport
    • Match Reports
    • Features
    • So You Think You Know?
  • Society
    • Contact Us
    • The Conc Blog
    • Meet the editors
    • Meet the committee
    • Discussion guidelines
    • Issue library
    • Competitions
    • Advertising
    • History
    • Training
    • Advertisers
  • Photography
Login

University agrees to music school closure

By Chris King on 28 November 2011

img

icon Comments (26)

Editor Chris King reports on the announcement of the closure of the University's School of Music, and the devastation amongst assembled music students and those supporting the Save UEA Music campaign.

The closure of the University's School of Music has officially been agreed following a meeting of the University Council. Despite a decision being expected by 4pm today (Monday), the closure was discovered by students of the School and has since been announced by several media outlets.

Devastated Music School students had been lining the walkway to the side of Union House, playing stoically since 9.45am this morning following a silent vigil held either side of the Registry building, where Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton’s office is located.

The University has released a statement on the closure, which reads as follows: “The University of East Anglia’s Council has accepted the findings of a recent review into the School of Music, and has decided to accept no new music students and to close the School after current students have completed their courses.

“Plans to continue to support and encourage musical activity among students and the wider community have also been outlined.”

Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton provided the following reaction to the decision of the University Council: "Our number one priority will be to ensure that current students are not disadvantaged and receive an excellent education. I would also like to underline our commitment to the continuation of music as an important social and cultural part of the life of the University and we will be announcing vigorous measures in the months to come.”

Bill Vine, a leading figure in the Save UEA Music campaign, which organised this morning's protest and is co-ordinating the reaction to the decision, spoke to Concrete minutes after the news emerged: "You can't help but think they didn't bother listening to any of the evidence. We're not taking it lying down, and they are not going to get away with it. They have a PR nightmare on their hands already, it's only going to get worse."

The University's press statement, released on to Twitter at 11.47am, was the first comment provided on social media websites or official University media (www.uea.ac.uk) since the closure of the School was first raised as a possibility. It continued: "The University has stressed its commitment to supporting the School’s current students throughout the rest of their time at UEA. Provisional teaching and learning plans have been drawn up.

"A Director of Music will oversee and encourage music-making, including the continuation of the University’s flourishing choirs and orchestras, whose members include staff and students from across the University, the city and beyond. Links will also continue with the University’s professional orchestra in residence, Chamber Orchestra Anglia."

With the Save UEA Music campaign having garnered over 10,000 signatures, featured in international news outlets such as The Huffington Post and BBC News, and received support from countless high-profile artists and musicians including Tom Morello, Chris Martin, Zane Lowe and Brian Eno, interest in this story is unlikely to diminish amidst what is almost certain to be a renewed campaign by Save UEA Music to highlight the manner in which the decision was made.

An offer had been made by the Royal Musicians' Association (RMA) to send in four top academics with a proven track record of running successful schools of music to assess the state of the School of Music at UEA, but this offer wasn't taken up by the Council. Reacting to this, Vine expressed his intense frustration: "We had agreed that if they [the four experts] came back and said the School wouldn't be possible to turn around in financial terms, we wouldn't oppose its closure. But the University don't care, they have made up their minds."

In terms of taking the campaign on, Vine admitted that the announcement had created some confusion as to the next step, but detailed some future possibilities: "We need to investigate and see if there are any higher bodies we can go to. We think there might be something in the Royal Charter. As far as I am aware, someone is appointed as a visitor and if they want to change something in the constitution they have to go through this person and it could well be that this person can step in on our behalf."

The Union of UEA Students (UUEAS) co-ordinated the management of the initial silent protest outside the Registry at 9.15am, which passed off without incident, but with the decision having been leaked earlier than expected, the possible outcome of this afternoon's protest is still unclear.

A press release, just issued by the UUEAS, reads as follows: "The Union believes that the closure of the school will be a massive loss to UEA and to the wider community. We will continue to support the peaceful and legal protests of the hundreds of 'Save UEA Music' campaigners."

Communications Officer, Matthew Myles, has provided the following reaction: "There are serious questions to be asked of this report, which didn’t consult with anyone teaching in the School of Music."

"Allowing a School to be closed by conducting a secret report, lacking in sufficient evidence, and rooted in misinterpretation of a 2002 review that was a 'positive plan' for the School (see the response of the 2002 authors here), and is without any exploration of alternatives, could set a worrying precedent for our University and universities around the country. The authors of the 2011 report declined to openly and publicly discuss the report, despite the overwhelming criticism of its lack of openness in putting the report together.”


For the full reaction to the decision and Concrete's interview with Bill Vine, visit www.concrete-online.co.uk later today (28 November) and read our special report in the next issue, out on 6 December. Follow @Concrete_UEA for updates throughout the day.



What are your thoughts?
 Comments


Anonymous
 
08/12/2011 23:27:55
Quote:Haha don't worry, Danny, I don't. You're a lost cause.

Danny
 
05/12/2011 13:44:28
Quote:If you wish to discuss this further, my email address is dannycollins123@hotmail.co.uk.

Anonymous
 
03/12/2011 20:18:20
Quote:"It goes without saying that there are many subtleties and nuances used within news reporting. Lets not patronise. I understand perfectly well wat you have said."

Well if you did appreciate all the journalistic tricks that can be used to bias an article you would have

1) not automatically presumed I was demanding a comment piece

2) not defending this article purely based on the number of sources on each sides used

I'm not being patronising - this is the honest impression you have given off.

Danny
 
01/12/2011 23:08:56
Quote:It goes without saying that there are many subtleties and nuances used within news reporting. Let's not patronise. I understand perfectly well wat you have said, I just don't agree that this is pro-University at all.

Let's not personalise this, either. You obviously either know me, or have taken the time to research. Why the continual 'anonymous' facade?.

Anonymous
 
01/12/2011 17:50:55
Quote:@Danny,

I think you have a very simplistic view of what determines the bias of an article.

You also seemed to think, when I originally said the article should be biased so as to represent the general view of the UEA student popular (Charlie Gibbons excluded), that I was demanding for a comment article which I found interesting. It's almost as if you don't realise all the different journalistic tricks that can be used to bias a piece one way or another despite aspiring to be a (sports) hack.

"I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one"

Oh but I thought I was "clearly wrong"? haha :)

But yeah we're getting nowhere here arguing 'cos I can't see this article getting edited so as to elimate the pro-university bias in it so I'll just agree to disagree too. It is a shame though!

Danny
 
01/12/2011 09:02:49
Quote:I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Anonymous
 
01/12/2011 01:06:17
Quote:@Danny,
"I would also suggest that the number of sources is absolutely vital to the bias of the piece."
No it is contributory but not definitive like you're making it out to be (which is why the BBC was still accused of bias at the last general election, and it's why Sky was too despite the impartiality laws in place).
And this is an example whereby, even if we were to say you were right about there being 3 pro-campaign sources to 2 uni sources, this article would still be biased towards the university thanks to its sequence structure.

Danny
 
30/11/2011 16:45:10
Quote:If you count the VC’s comments as separate from the University’s statement, then I would suggest that Matt Myles, the Union’s and Bill Vine’s statements are counted as separate also. My maths isn’t good, but I make that three pro-Music School comments to two University.

I would also suggest that the number of sources is absolutely vital to the bias of the piece. The BBC, during election season, is obliged to give absolute parity to parties in terms of their time spent on screen. I would argue that if a news broadcast in which three quotes were given by Tories, as opposed to two by Labour, this would deemed biased.

Danny
 
30/11/2011 16:35:41
Quote:If you count the VC’s comments as separate from the University’s statement, then I would suggest that Matt Myles, the Union’s and Bill Vine’s statements are counted as separate also. My maths isn’t good, but I make that three pro-Music School comments to two University.

I would also suggest that the number of sources is absolutely vital to the bias of the piece. The BBC, during election season, is obliged to give absolute parity to parties in terms of their time spent on screen. I would argue that if a news broadcast in which three quotes were given by Tories, as opposed to two by Labour, this would deemed biased.

Danny
 
30/11/2011 15:47:47
Quote:If you count the VC’s comments as separate from the University’s statement, then I would suggest that Matt Myles, the Union’s and Bill Vine’s statements are counted as separate also. My maths isn’t good, but I make that three pro-Music School comments to two University.

I would also suggest that the number of sources is absolutely vital to the bias of the piece. The BBC, during election season, is obliged to give absolute parity to parties in terms of their time spent on screen. I would argue that if a news broadcast in which three quotes were given by Tories, as opposed to two by Labour, this would deemed biased.

Anonymous
 
30/11/2011 14:54:01
Quote:@Danny,

Of course context was needed but it needn't have been done quite like that.

Pro-university sources take up most the first half of the article (and the most important half of the article considering it would have been more widely read than the latter half). The only opposing source there is in paragraph 6 and it is sandwiched between two pro-university sources which undermine it.

Not until paragraph 10 do we really see the pro-campaign side of the argument.

"If we're talking bias here, you could more persuasively argue that the article was in favour of the Music School. There are three quotes from ‘pro-Music School’ sources, and two from the University."

There are actually 2 sources for both sides of the argument being used here: The VC and the uni press release vs Bill Vine and Matt Myles.

And, besides, the number of sources used to represent both sides does not necessarily determine the overall bias of the article.

Especially, in the context here, where the pro-university sources have been given priority over the pro-campaign sources in the sequence structure.

I don't see how you can say I'm "clearly wrong" here when textual analysis of this article does show a subtle bias towards the university.

Danny
 
30/11/2011 12:45:32
Quote:@anonymous - It's annoying enough when an individual is condescending, but it's even worse when they continue to be so despite being clearly wrong.

The central issue in this article is the University's decision to close the Music School. So of course the first issue to highlight is the reasoning behind the University's decision, hence the statement from Mr Acton.

The article has to provide some context before going on to give reaction to the decision. To give students’ reaction before providing any context behind this reaction would defy anyone’s logic.

If we're talking bias here, you could more persuasively argue that the article was in favour of the Music School. There are three quotes from ‘pro-Music School’ sources, and two from the University.

Concrete has been accused of being both left wing and right wing in the light of its coverage of the closure. Not everyone can be right. I think it is the case that you are reading what you want to believe the article insinuates, and not what is actually does.

If you wish to discuss this in a more open manner, I would be happy to do so. My twitter is @DannyCollins89 or you can add me on Facebook.

Best wishes

Anonymous to "Dear anon from anon"
 
30/11/2011 00:50:01
Quote:"it's a newspaper - we quote people. that doesn't mean we support them..."
That was not the point I was making at all. I totally expect the newspaper to quote people and everyone involved.
What I was saying was that how this article has been framed in terms of its sequence structure and through some of the lexicon used was that it subtley supports the university here.

Anonymous to "Dear anon from anon"
 
29/11/2011 23:06:57
Quote:"it's a newspaper - we quote people. that doesn't mean we support them..."
That was not the point I was making at all. I totally expect the newspaper to quote people and everyone involved.
What I was saying was that how this article has been framed in terms of its sequence structure and through some of the lexicon used was that it subtley supports the university here.

Anonymous
 
29/11/2011 21:48:38
Quote:I'm glad to see the comment section of Concrete has degraded to the standards of the Daily Mail's comment section. Seems to give a good indication of the level of ignorance of Concrete's readers or those involved in the Save UEA Music campaign.

Anonymous
 
29/11/2011 18:57:13
Quote:Dear Anonymous from Anonymous.

I think you're missing the point also... we're quite clearly supporting the music school. continuously. it's a newspaper - we quote people. that doesn't mean we support them...


Anonymous
 
29/11/2011 18:56:23
Quote:The point I am trying to make Danny is that it is possible for news articles to take sides without being propaganda or a comment piece.
I just thought I'd add that just incase you still couldn't understand what I was getting at.

Anonymous
 
29/11/2011 18:49:44
Quote:@Danny, you have either gravely misunderstood what I was saying earlier OR you have deliberately misrepresented my argument.

Firstly:

"The best way to reflect student attitudes is not to insult their intelligence, but to allow them to make their own minds up based on the facts."

I couldn't agree more! So why has Concrete chosen to favour the university's point of view here? Because that truly does insult people's intelligence.

While of course I do not think everyone else has the same of opinion as me, ANY rationally thikning person who knows the facts can see who is right and who is wrong here.

Now to address the main point here:

If you look at how this article has been framed (particularly in its sequence structure), it does favour the univeristy when it would have easily been possible to remain impartial and favour the campaign.

.e.g. "Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton provided the following reaction to the decision of the University Council:..."

1. The VC is part of the University Council and yet here it has been implied/framed as if he was not involved - a misrepresentation of the facts.

2. It could have been phrased as "VC Edward Acton insisted" or "claimed" etc, and it would have still been a legitimate news piece.

This is just one example Danny boy. There is enough evidence here to fairly say that Concrete is favouring the university over the campaign here.

Or do you still disagree with me? Would you like me to spoon feed you some more examples which you seem unable to see for yourself?

Anonymous
 
29/11/2011 14:11:13
Quote:"Anonymous" strikes again...

Danny
 
29/11/2011 12:36:35
Quote:Come on, this article isn't structured to support the University in any way, shape or form. If anything it supports the campaign.

I personally believe it's a travesty that the Music School has shut, but for you to suggest that Concrete should disregard all sides of the story, and instead publish an unabashed propaganda piece in support of the School is ridiculous.

You want a comment piece, read the comment section. News should present the facts and provide you with the opportunity to make your own informed opinion.

I mean you're asking for biased news, yet I’m almost certain you abhor publications such as the Mail and the Sun - it's just pure hypocrisy.

And as for "Concrete should demonstrate students' points of view". Of course it should! But again, it's that narrow minded attitude that your 20,000 peers all see things the same way that you do.

The best way to reflect student attitudes is not to insult their intelligence, but to allow them to make their own minds up based on the facts.

Anonymous
 
29/11/2011 03:32:04
Quote:"As the Concrete Editor, however, my duty is to report this impartially and try to present both sides and all the relevant facts pertaining to the story. I hope and believe I have done this."
For starters, who wants to read something which has been written so as to present "both sides" when one of those sides (the university) hasn't got a leg to stand on?
And don't give us that impartiality nonsense when you've structured your article in a way which favours the university's bullshit point of view.
Most student papers represent how the students who go to that uni feel, but you're not doing that here! Why can't you take sides seeing as you're meant to represent us, and especially considering that the other news outlets all seem to be taking the university's side on this?
Concrete is the only paper UEA has and it is clearly out of touch with how most of us feel about this!
You should count your lucky stars that you get outside funding because I don't see how else you'd survive being so out of touch like this!

Chris
 
29/11/2011 01:56:09
Quote:I appreciate the headline is a little bit mundane, but we had to communicate the news, and obviously the time-scale in which this could be written was extremely small.

I am not a student anymore, and I achieved my degree in Modern History. I don't play a musical instrument, so strictly speaking I have nothing to do with the closure and no view on it.

In a personal capacity, however, it has deeply saddened me. I do care for the people who have run such a dignified, public and high-profile campaign and not resorted to dirty tactics, name-calling or public disorder to get their point across. Bill Vine, Josh Bowker, Cal Corkery and all the others involved with Save UEA Music ought to be proud, amidst their devastation. This decision is a slap in the face for the arts, and sets a very dangerous precedent. The University has made a decision to put minor economies above the desires of students and the weight of popular opinion, and in the future school closures are only going to become easier, and more likely.

As the Concrete Editor, however, my duty is to report this impartially and try to present both sides and all the relevant facts pertaining to the story. I hope and believe I have done this.

Anonymous
 
28/11/2011 23:09:17
Quote:Yeah the headline is awful, but Chris would have been rushing to get this out and I'm just so impressed he didn't let it spill into a rant

...although it's entirely possible he doesn't actually care too much about any of this ofcourse. It's not like he is a student here, is it? He's a university employee

Anonymous
 
28/11/2011 17:44:18
Quote:Frankly, it is more to do with new funding provisions than saving money - in reality it will save very little. Humanities already support sciences and maths because they have higher tariffs. Prospecting students might just find gold somewhere I suppose.

Anonymous
 
28/11/2011 14:35:38
Quote:I frankly don't care that UEA music is going and I hope it frees up resources for other areas that are more beneficial to the uni, staff and students. It's not like prospecting students cannot go elsewhere to study music related degrees, with probably better facilities too. I just hope the staff affected by this are appropriately relocated and compensated or move onto better things. And that the current student's education is not affected. Best of luck to all those involved.

Anonymous
 
28/11/2011 13:39:03
Quote:This is a really bad headline...doesn't even suggest what the story is about. Too vague

Your Name
Email
Comment
CAPTCHA image
Enter the code
 

University agrees to music school closure

Related Articles
Vice-chancellor outlines Corporate Plan






Submit 
 

 
Home News Comment Features Lifestyle Culture International Science & Tech Sport Society Photography  Login
Copyright 2011 by Pixelated