Last week, on several occasions, I found myself having conversations with people who had the most exciting ideas, and the passion and the energy to actualise those, to address some of the issues that cloud our fair horizon. Issues from income generation to curriculum transformation to increasing research output... and countless other issues. But the trouble was, in each and every case - the person with these wonderful ideas was doomed to die clutching at them. They had no vehicle for communicating these, no access to those whose ears should hear them, no chance of being heard out or taken seriously if they put their ideas on the table.
Why? Because of their placement in the hierarchy. Because of their classification on the wrong side of the thinking - doing divide. Because of their role as supporters of the visions of others, not as creators of vision. Because, crudely, these were not "academics", and not managers. They were rank-and-file "non-academic" staffers.
It's quite sad, really. But although tongues might click and heads might shake about this tragedy, it continues to be entrenched. University, and Faculty, research strategy documents currently circulating fail to consider that staff employed on conditions other than academic might contribute to research - even those whose jobs explicitly require them to do so. And there is certainly no conception of developing research capacity within the "non-academic" sector - either through inclusion in / eligibilty for programmes like the Emerging Researcher Programme (on which some "non-academics" have been known to teach...), eligibility for funding or mentoring or assistance with travel to present peer-reviewed papers at international conferences, etc. Wrong class, wrong classification, wait for the "non-academic" bus and don't even think to sit on the "academics only" benches!
Similarly, although January is academic leave month, "academics" can teach on summer term, or summer school, courses in December, during their core working hours, for additional remuneration. Yet ask a "non-academic" to assume an additional workload for one of these income-generating activities, above and beyond what is in their job description, and it is simply assumed to be "part of their job", for which no further remuneration would be warranted. Their motivation to participate in such activities, or to devise others, can't really be expected to soar, can it?
Curriculum issues are also beyond their input. These are discussed behind closed doors at staff meetings "for 'academics' only" and they are merely informed of such outcomes as are deemed necessary for their knowledge - to translate into instructions for them to carry out. Communication, to the extent that it happens, is a one-way street.
It's not that these "academics" are evil beings - in many cases they're very nice people, who react with shock and horror should one confront them with their "bad" behaviour. It simply doesn't occur to them that "non-academics" are more than a pair of hands to carry out the tasks assigned to them. And why should it - that is, after all, the institutional role assigned to this class of staff.
Given that this class of staff is more black than white, and more female than male, in an institution where the ruling class is significantly more white than black, and rather more male than female, is it any wonder that these inequalities start to take on race and gendered dimensions, shades of apartheid even?