That said, pragmatism and self-interest, unchecked and disciplined by a sense of ideology and vision, particularly when done by people who formulate and propogate such positions very publically in their intellectual output, seems to say the least disappointing – integrity comes from the balance of pragmatism and ideology in the moment of struggle, and part of that is deciding to sustain the pressure on yourself for the common good – and if you cannot practice quite what you preach, issues of trust and credibility – politically and intellectually – become apparent.

2. Christian Kerslake says ‘Mark Kelly and I both found out about the move to Kingston on the same day as everybody else, and we were not consulted about it at any point.’ If this is the case I would make two points. Whether its Che Guevara or the most ‘gung ho’ US marine – ideology aside – you don’t leave your comrades on the ground. Solidarity, common trust and respect demand you show loyalty, and this will be incredibly important in the politics of universities in the next couple of years, as it is in all trade struggles. Many would argue such a burden sits greater with the more senior and so more potentially more powerful members of a community.

Given what Christian says, I think most of those who supported the Middlesex campaign – acknowledged as being significant – would have had a different and less sympathetic view if they had known there was a ‘lifeboat strategy’ being formulated that involved leaving more junior colleagues on deck. It would be useful to know more about when the discussion of movement began amongst the ‘select group’ and how it was conducted, but there seems no excuse – none – for running a generic save Middlesex/philosophy campaign whilst having an undisclosed ‘exit strategy’ developed and unstated. There are hard words for such activity. No demands of pragmatism adequately compensate for it and one wonders how you reconcile ‘no university would take all of us’ with some of those left behind not knowing that such a case was being made. Its seems, unless factually contradicted, an incredibly sad state of affairs for which conscience and politics seem not to have dictated action (and that is notwithstanding whether, as Christian says, he’d have wanted to move or not).

3. There is a suggestion that the move by the ‘select group’ allows the struggle to be conitnued from the distance. I also note Christian’s discussion points 2 and 3 about the politics of the struggle within Middlesex and the previous record elsewhere of turning back management decisions. I think whether there would have been a successful campaign if all had stayed is deeply questionable and individual merits in every case play a part – Middlesex is not Liverpool. There is, however, one thing I am absolutely sure about. Leaving, splitting solidarity and locating elswhere does not bolster, add or increase the power of support in any way to any campaign or struggle, and it is somewhat naive or unjust to say so. Taking it to the brink at Middlesex may have resulted in losses, but you cannot dress leaving as the politically mature thing to do, even if one of those left behind now appears to have secured temporary security. Speaking to truth involves not spinning everything you have done as the ‘right’ move – sometimes it involves saying ‘we know by doing this we have brought about negative consequences for others and we’re sorry’.

3. Much is made of looking at this in the broader view of saving continental philosophy through preservation of the research centre. Of course, that has its merits, but if the issue of philosophy is raised, I find myself wondering how Derrida would have read this, or Foucault, or how Badiou or Ranciere would read this sort of politics. I am fairly sure how Gramsci would read it. The point is, you don’t save ideas by actions that do not embody the ideas, make them real in human conduct. You make them phantasms, illusions, by breaking with them in the practical political settings. What exactly are we saving? scholarship as measured by the REF or a particular nexus of research outputs? Is that saving philosophy, or its relevance in everyday lives?

My real fear is that such lessons as are coming out from this sort of discussion are not learned. If universities are not to become (if they are not already) ‘skills’ factories run on market grounds, its essential we resist the temptation to embrace the market any more than we have, and important we are honest in the compromises we make. We are only going to do this by solidarity, mutual ethically based respect in our conduct and honesty in speaking truth with each other. I do not think the Middlesex campaign, when its underbelly is exposed, meets those criteria. I do not think the best political strategy is either General Custers or retreat at the first skirmish, but I think we start by acting collectively and in solidarity and with honesty and so trust. If I were Christian Kerslake, suspended with colleagues but not apparently to share their exit – I am not sure I could have written a mail with such reconciliation in it and if were one of those whose statement heads this list of comments, I would be asking whether the triumphalist nature of the statement is quite so appropriate.