The student protesters occupying the Mansion Building at Trent Park campus were informed on Friday morning that the university management was seeking a court injunction to end our sit-in protest.
This news came as a surprise to us since we were in the midst of negotiations with management over the future of philosophy at Middlesex.
We are disappointed at the management’s provocative decision to bring lawyers in to resolve this dispute. We are currently seeking legal advice in response to these threats. We intend to continue our campaign to save philosophy at Middlesex University and intend to continue our protest at the Mansion Building in order to achieve that aim.
We urge everyone who supports our campaign to come and visit the occupied Mansion Building. We have a programme of speakers and events lined up over the weekend, including Eyal Weizman on Friday evening and Tariq Ali on Saturday afternoon.
To read the full correspondence between the student protesters and management, including the solicitors’ letter we received this morning and our reply, please click here.
Pingback: Update from Middlesex occupation « ULU Campaigner blog
Hang in there. You are doing a good, necessary and courageous thing.
Now we see that nothing threatens the MDX admins more than the sight of student-led education. Who owns the university? The fee-paying and tax-paying students and the faculty who serve them directly or the fat cat admins with their extortionate demands for more and more revenue and their addiction to millions in “consultant” fees?
‘Stand ye calm and resolute
Like a forest close and mute
With folded arms and looks which
Weapons of unvanquished war’
Ditto. Solidarity from Nottingham.
All the best. Hope you win and other student’s follow your example!!!
Unfortunately, this was bound to happen if the Campaign was not able – in the first place – to make a case against the Management (on the grounds of their severe malpractice) through a court of law. I do wonder, though, whether this might still be possible. I also wonder whose funds Management have used to bring their unilateral legal action? I think it should be clear by now that none of this is about ‘who holds the moral high ground?’; rather, it has been a contention of RIGHTS from the outset.