Ever since Socrates was first instructed to down his hemlock, students have been expected to enjoy being beaten. Could we expect less? Of all the human resources ever to be jotted into the great spreadsheets of our Lords and managers, students are perhaps the worst. This much every university administrator learns, even while still at the teat of his or her innovative management training programme. And yet as our educational institutions evolve in accordance with contemporary managerial procedure, so also do best practices for beating.
In light of this, the following text provides a brief sampling of some of the most aggressively effective innovatory progress strategies:
The popular myth is that the 2010 occupation of Sussex’s main administrative building was ended when senior management falsified a hostage situation in order to facilitate the arrival on campus of several scores of police, who then assaulted students with fists and riot shields, causing sufficient intimidation that the students in the building were compelled to leave.
Nothing could be further from the truth! Without the courageous clarity of instinct demonstrated by senior management, several confidential Word documents might have been opened. Items of stationary might have been moved. As the Higher Education Business Manual timelessly instructs, beating students who protest is an exemplary instance of best practice.
After they occupy a hallway, a group of University of Birmingham students are rapidly evicted by a large cohort of security guards and police. According to reports by students and a UCU witness, security guards force access to the space after the occupiers opened its door to allow entrance to two newly arrived friends. Several students are then pushed around; one student is sternly headbutted by a police officer. This prompts the occupation’s immediate termination.
Naturally none of this is to be taken at all seriously. The ambassadors of Truth working in senior administrative roles at the University riposted that “[t]he occupation came to an end at around 6.45pm at the point that protesters charged at security staff without warning, putting the safety of staff and students at risk”. Readers should be advised that Birmingham University, in its tumultuous passion for efficient management of multiple resources, prefers advance warning from those students who plan to “charge” at its security guards. Students might argue that this all sounds like an idiotic lie, but they’ll no doubt be placated once the institution rolls out its online booking system.
Already in 2010, students deemed it necessary to spread the vicious idea that the University of Cambridge had invited police officers on to the grounds in front of the central ceremonial building of the institution in order to beat them back from hammering on the doors of their government’s house.
The truth of the matter is, clearly, that a small minority of the student body, a mere hundred or so, along with an entirely spurious rebellion by the town’s youth, attempted to disturb the peace of Vice-Chancellor Nero with cries that his university’s academic possibilities were immolating. Given the circumstances, the police should be commended for their quick response in protecting the seventeenth century doors and Nero’s peace.
This is entirely corroborated by the more recent incident in which two Cambridge students, unsatisfied with having disturbed Nero some months previously, dared to saunter through their College of residence. Some may say that Cambridge Constabulary reacted inappropriately by throwing a student to the ground, pepper spraying another, and arresting them both. But it is clear to anyone who watches the video footage of the incident that the only reasonable response to the aggressive shrieking of the surrounding co-conspirators was to temporarily blind the culprit so that those around him would not be encouraged to further acts of disobedience by the look in his eyes.
Royal Holloway, 2011
Royal Holloway, 2011 Left wing radicals begin to hold incendiary meetings in order to incite violence under the guise of coordinating a campaign to support lecturers and save public services. A courageous young student acts with valour in entering the den of vipers to film the hatred and madness, in the interests of preserving the integrity of the Students’ Union’s campaign to further the student movement by saturating the inbox of the local MP, Philip Hammond.
The self-serving, disruptive occupiers have unreasonably requested an open consultative meeting so that management, lecturers, staff and students can discuss the future of the university together; blatantly ignoring the facts that students and lecturers are incapable of having ideas about issues beyond their comprehension, and open consultative meetings have already been held between the Principal and Vice-Chancellors in the locked management corridor.
The only logical step for the management to take has been to invite Police to observe a radically inflammatory discussion co-hosted by Amnesty International to prevent religious hatred and puppies being eaten (probably).
N.B.: To aid our ongoing efforts at total service-provider client accountability, please write to us with your own articles, memoranda and historiographical disquisitions on brutality against students.