No penalties for 171 Liverpool students

Before the appeals hearing, a number of those who participated in the occupation signed a statement that they were equally responsible for actions taken during the sit-in, and that the ten who have been disciplined should not therefore have been singled out. Today,  The Times has this:

No disciplinary action is to be taken by Liverpool University authorities against 171 students who took part in a sit-in at the Senate House at the end of last term, for which 10 students have already been punished […]

The other 171 wrote to Mr Trevor Thomas, the Vice-Chancellor, stating that they were each ‘equally responsible for any action taken in accordance with the wishes of the corporate body of the occupation’.

Mr Herbert Burchall, University Registrar, announced today that he wrote to the 171 students asking whether they intended by their statement to admit that they were guilty of the charge of ‘conduct detrimental to the discharge of the duties of the university’.

His statement said: ‘It is understood that at the hearings before the board of appeal it was claimed that the statement…was merely a ‘solidarity statement’ and not an admission of guilt.  Although the university does not entirely accept this view of the statement, it does recognise that, having regard to the circumstances in which it was written, it may not have been intended as an admission of a disciplinary offence…It had therefore been decided not to proceed against the 171 students, in almost all of whose cases the statement is the only available evidence’.

Advertisements

Author: Gerry

Retired college teacher living in Liverpool, UK.

1 thought on “No penalties for 171 Liverpool students”

  1. It’s pretty clear that the administrative thuggery which has come to deface universities in recent years, now visited mainly on academic staff, has its roots in the brutish behaviour of these Liverpool University bureaucrats in 1970. No University worth of the name and valuing its promotion of free speech and dissent can defend the conduct of HH Burchell and his stone-faced successors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s