Defend the right to organise and free expression on our campuses

“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.”

Rosa Luxemburg, Polish revolutionary socialist

Students march in the Berkeley Free Speech movement, 1964

Students march in the Berkeley Free Speech movement, 1964

As a left-wing movement, our goal is to transform the world – to take power from the few to the many and use it to create a better society. One of the key struggles for us is on the battlefield of ideas. It is, in part, through ensuring the dominance of certain ideas that the status quo is maintained. Therefore, to confront the rich and powerful, we need to counter their ideas with ours, and change hearts and minds.

That’s one reason why the fight for education is so important. Democratising access to, and the development of, ideas and knowledge, isn’t just about equalising job opportunities: it’s also about empowering more and more people politically.

It’s also why freedom of expression and freedom of discussion are as vital as oxygen to any progressive, liberatory movement. If we can’t even discuss and spread radical ideas, any attempt to change the world is suffocated before it can even begin. And beyond expression and discussion of ideas, we also need the ability to organise together around those ideas, and act on them. Historically, these freedoms have been most denied to the left, the oppressed and the exploited – precisely in order to stop us challenging the powers that be.

This is why the current threats – which come from many different sides – to these basic political freedoms on campuses should be so concerning to education activists. NCAFC is committed to opposing all these threats in a joined-up, consistent way, to defend and extend political freedoms.

Here are some of the issues we want to address:

Anti-Prevent Poster from the UCU trade union

Anti-Prevent Poster from the UCU trade union

1. The government’s Prevent policy

Under the Prevent policy, schools, colleges and universities are now legally required to monitor students considered “at risk” of being drawn into “extremist ideas” and protect them from being “radicalised”. In practice, this policy leads to the targeting, surveillance, harassment and stigmatisation of Muslim students disproportionately, as well as radical left-wing activists, with a potential chilling effect on the expression of radical ideas. In addition, the government wants universities to ban speakers that would be quite legal elsewhere.

2. Education bosses clamping down

The senior managers of schools, colleges and universities are going above and beyond their legal duties to restrict free expression. Many are uncomfortable with speakers and events that might draw controversy, and still more are preventing or discouraging political postering, leafleting and campaigning in order to maintain a sterile, squeaky-clean corporate image – and the smooth running of for-profit businesses on our increasingly commercialised campuses. In other cases, student voices have been suppressed from countering particular speakers – for example, in the intimidation of students at King Edward’s Camp Hill School for Girls who wanted the opportunity to express critical questions and dissenting views when the Israeli ambassador was invited to speak at their school.

Protesting the suspensions of University of Birmingham activists

Protesting the suspensions of University of Birmingham activists

In recent years, senior managers’ responses to protest and organised dissent on campuses have become particularly draconian. They have mobilised antidemocratic laws against us and victimised individual students and workers who are activists, protesters and organisers. From the suspension of student occupiers to the use of legal injunctions and police violence to control campus space, and from the blocking of workers’ strikes on antidemocratic technicalities to having troublesome trade unionists deported or made redundant, these attacks require robust responses, including full solidarity with those victimised.

3. Cops off campus
#CopsOffCampus demonstration, London 2013

#CopsOffCampus demonstration, London 2013

Not only do the police pose a threat to individuals – in particular harassing and assaulting black people and other those of other marginalised groups – they also play a repressive role against left-wing political activity. Protests have been violently attacked, and students and workers taking action have faced surveillance and harassment. In many countries, the police cannot enter campuses without special permission. This has made campuses beacons of free thought and political expression in those countries. We aspire towards achieving the same thing in the UK!

4. Academic freedom and the marketisation of education and research

Successive governments have sought to turn students into consumers, and academics into producers of market-oriented teaching and research. The range of courses available, especially to students with less financial means, is narrowing, with politically and socially critical teaching – from trade union studies and heterodox economics, to feminist and black liberation studies – being squeezed out. The higher education reforms currently in progress will only make this worse. In research, narrow-minded metrics combined with competition for limited funding and jobs are more and more tightly restricting academic enquiry, to suit the needs and interests of the government and the owners of industry.

UCL students petitioned against their union's ban on Macer Gifford speaking at its Kurdish Society

UCL students petitioned against their union’s ban on Macer Gifford speaking at its Kurdish Society

5. Bureaucratised student unions

Many student unions are run like businesses, with positions taken by people who want to boost their CVs. Their culture is politically opposed to student organising and debate – particularly if left-wing politics are in the mix. Many unions go along with rules or pressure from their institution, or go above and beyond the call of duty in their attempts to avoid argument and controversy. For example, Teesside Student Union shutting down discussion on free education and quashing independently-organised political debates, and UCL Union sabbatical officers trying to bar Macer Gifford, who had fought with Kurdish forces against ISIS, from speaking on campus. Organising societies, meetings, events and public activity is generally getting harder.

6. Restrictions on our unions
Trade union reps Mark Campbell and David Hardman, who have lost their jobs at London Met Uni

Trade union reps Mark Campbell and David Hardman, who have lost their jobs at London Met Uni

The strictures of the new Trade Union Act add to the constraints imposed by decades of anti-union laws against workers trying to organise and defend their rights. The UK’s trade unionists face some of the most draconian laws of any democratic capitalist country. Our student unions, too, are subject to restrictions on their actions and the political scope of their activity that have been been imposed by successive governments keen to head off organised opposition to their policies. What’s worse, many of our student unions’ bureaucracies have internalised the anti-political, service-provider model of student unions pushed on them from above. They often implement over-zealously implement excessively conservative interpretations of these laws – for instance, UCL Union’s trustees (including unelected non-students) recently ruled that the union was not allowed to vote to do something as modest as raise awareness of the repression of Palestinians.

7. No platform and the left

On top of these external threats, within the student left and the wider student movement there is a political current that advocates bans to shut out speakers with bigoted, right-wing and disagreeable views. We want to fight those reactionary politics, but in general, we think that instead of no-platforming the people who hold them, we need to actively engage, counter and defeat their ideas through argument and protest. You can read more about this here.

8. International solidarity
Students at India's Jawaharlal Nehru University protesting the arrest of student union leader Kanhaiya Kumar on charges of sedition

Students at India’s Jawaharlal Nehru University protesting the arrest of student union leader Kanhaiya Kumar on charges of sedition

Around the world, education activists are facing repression – in many cases much worse than that in the UK. For instance, Indian students protesting the far-right Modi government have been arrested for “sedition”, US students were pepper-sprayed while sat still in a non-violent protest, and Turkish academics were rounded up for signing a petition against their government’s massacre of Kurdish people. While campaigning for political freedom on our own campuses, we stand in solidarity with those around the world fighting for the same.

Take action!

NCAFC wants to spark debate about political freedoms and a culture of open discussion on campuses, and to push back against these encroachments in order to create an environment in which students’ and workers’ organisation and campaigning can blossom. Join the debate and join the campaign on your campus!

Go to the main page on this issue

The student movement, the left, and no platform

We believe that open discussion and free expression are the lifeblood of left-wing and liberation struggles. We want to change the world for the better, and that means confronting, tackling and defeating a host of bigoted, right-wing and regressive ideas. Parts of the student movement think that one way to do this is through the use of “no platform” policies on our campuses and in our unions, to shut out the people who believe those ideas. We think that instead, we need to beat those ideas through argument and protest, and change hearts and minds to change the world.

What is “no platform”?

No platform protestNo-platforming is a tactic adopted originally by activists against fascist organisations. It means refusing, as a general blanket rule, to permit a specified group any platform to organise, promote their ideas, or act on them. This could mean everything from turning over a street stall, to disrupting a meeting, to denying them an invitation to speak in a student society event. It also includes refusing, again as a blanket rule, to ever have representatives of your organisation or movement share a platform with that group.

The left and liberation struggles need to fight a battle of ideas

Our movements exist precisely because reactionary ideas and bigotry are not marginal but dominant and widespread across our society. So changing minds – billions of minds! – is therefore completely vital to what we want to achieve. There is no shortcut and we can’t proceed by hoping to gain control of various little pockets of society (like student unions) and make them ideologically pure through imposing regulations from the top down. No regulation or speaker policy can change hearts and minds. The left has to confront the world as it is, and debate and discuss with people to win them over.

At worst, attempting to apply no-platform policies to widely-held ideas means denying ourselves a platform. When we refuse to share a platform with people who hold bigoted or right-wing views, very often our opponents get a free ride. It is our job as a movement to go out and compete against them to spread our ideas.

It can be exhausting and distressing to go out into a hostile world and confront dominant ideas that attack our freedom and our very right to exist. But that’s why we build a collective movement. No individual can or should be expected to fight every battle, but organised together with everyone contributing as much as they are able, as a collective we can meet those challenges.

Open discussion within the left and liberation movements is also vital – it’s the only way to ensure that our movements are democratic, and that we constantly challenge ourselves to re-examine, refine and improve the ideas that drive them.

Attacks from the authorities

More broadly, progressives and the left always face attempts to silence us. Political freedoms on our campuses are already under attack from the government, from education bosses, and from the marketisation of education.

We need to stop these attacks, and an argument about defending free enquiry, free debate and free speech is essential to winning that fight. There are differences between restrictions imposed by the state and those by student unions, but we can’t win the argument for the value of open discussion if we are inconsistent, if we are simultaneously imposing our own regulations of which ideas can and cannot be expressed. Our best defence depends on building, and embedded as widely and firmly as possible, a consensus in favour of defending open discussion and free speech.

What’s different about fascists?

Mural depicting the Battle of Cable Street: anti-fascist Londoners faced down the police to physically block a march by Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts

Mural depicting the Battle of Cable Street: anti-fascist Londoners faced down the police to physically block a march by Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts

We don’t think that fascist ideas cross some arbitrary line of being too distressing or offensive to be heard: we don’t want to ban fascist texts from libraries. Nor do we think that policies attempting to silence fascists would be sufficient to beat fascist ideas anyway – we will never beat ideas with anything other than different, better ideas.

Instead, we are committed to no platform as a physical self-defence tactic – part of a militant anti-fascist strategy. Fascist groups are an organised movement of physical violence in the streets, fighting to terrorise, crush, and ultimately murder oppressed groups, the workers’ movement and the left. Antifascists are forced to respond by doing whatever we can to disrupt fascists and their efforts.

Importantly, this is a tactic that the left and student and workers’ movements can use to fight fascists from the grassroots up. We don’t, for instance, call for the state to step in and ban fascist organisations and demonstrations for us. We know we can’t trust the state in the fight against fascism, and experience also shows that state-imposed restrictions on the far-right are easily turned against the left too.

In certain circumstances, we may apply similar tactics to other physically threatening and violent groups and individuals which confront us. Again, this is about physical self-defence.

Reclaiming the banner of political freedoms from right-wing hypocrites

Recently, right-wingers and bigots – from Conservative student campaigns to press outlets like Spiked! – have draped themselves with the banner of free speech against the left of the student movement. This has been possible, in part, because of the abandonment of that banner by parts of the left. But the right’s defence of political freedom has, in most cases, been deeply hypocritical and inconsistent. These commentators rail at student union no platform policies – too often because they actually support the bigoted and reactionary ideas that are usually the targets of these policies – but have little or nothing to say about Prevent, university and college managers cleansing campus spaces of visible politics, or the victimisation of student protesters and trade union organisers.

NCAFC is setting out to show up these hypocrites, and build a consistent, left-wing campaign to defend and extend freedom of speech, debate, organisation and action on campuses, in order to facilitate a flowering of student and workers’ organisation and struggle. Join us!

Go to the main page on this issue

NSS: NCAFC and FACE back a boycott!

Both NCAFC and Fighting Against Casualisation in Education (FACE) back a boycott of the National Student Survey.

NUS is now committed to disrupting the National Student Survey (NSS) thanks to policy passed at National Conference. Sorana Vieru, Vice President Higher Education, has recently launched a consultation on the precise tactic to be taken: full boycott, partial boycott or sabotage. NCAFC and FACE back an outright boycott.

It’s the common sense option. Both a sabotage and partial boycott are overly complicated and overly “clever.” With a simple strategy (boycott the NSS!) and simple demands (stop the higher education reforms!) we can beat the government.

Lots of people will get behind it. Only a whole mass of people engaging in this will work. We don’t want just 70 or 100 students per institution. We want a whole movement—that means hundreds of people boycotting at each university. With a simple message and simple demands, we can do that.

It reduces engagement with the NSS—a good thing in itself! The NSS has been shown to systematically discriminate against black teachers, and it most likely discriminates against female teachers too. It’s used to bully staff, and SUs are held to ransom with it, with a large block grant being dependent on high satisfaction scores. If it comes to a boycott, then reducing engagement can only be a good thing.

Let’s issue the government an ultimatum—they stop the HE reforms, or we boycott the NSS!

* * *

In depth: why full boycott?

Pruning junk data

Ipsos MORI already have a policy to remove junk data from the NSS. Year on year the number of students giving uniform answers on the NSS has increased. Over 5% of students now tick the same answer for every question, and more generally students are giving more similar answers for each question. This is known as junk data. Ipsos MORI, the polling company which carries out the NSS, are well aware of this problem. They have a policy to “prune” junk data – that is, they are prepared to remove uniformly-answered surveys. It seems likely they would counter a “sabotage” campaign by publicly saying they will remove junk data.

Participation and impact

Maximising participation is absolutely key. We need tens of thousands of students to carry out the action. People will find out about the action through a variety of channels – not just from their SU, or campus campaigners, but directly from the national conversation via the press, twitter, etc. Therefore the strategy needs to be dead simple. It will be harder to explain and convey a skewed-marks strategy. You can completely explain “boycott NSS” in two words, that’s all someone needs to see on a poster, a news headline, a hashtag, whatever, to know everything they need to participate. Sabotage is more complicated: you have to get someone to hear out an entire instruction. Abstaining on NSS Q1-12 is even more complicated, and will need a full conversation to explain: “We want you to boycott the first 12 questions, because they’re used in TEF, but you can fill out the others. Why? Well…”

Second, if we go with boycott it is easier for everyone to understand the impact we are asking them to make. In other words, we don’t want a strategy which tries to be too “clever.” The idea behind a boycott is easy to grasp – the survey will be useless if none of us fills it out – and the outcomes will match expectations. It is much more difficult to understand the impact of the sabotage option: “If we give them junk data it might skew the results, making them unusable, but if they don’t use the data, then it’s like it was a boycott anyway”. If Ipsos MORI respond by saying they have removed the junk data and the sabotage was ineffectual, people will be confused. We want the tactic to be incredibly simple and easy-to-grasp without thought. There’s a risk of exacerbating separation into a layer of informed activists who are pleased with playing a clever game with the enemy, and everyone else looking on passively. Boycott is more “equalising.”

Third, boycott will give us simpler numbers and much better headlines. “60% of students did not fill out the NSS” is clear, dramatic and impressive. It allows us to take those who wouldn’t have filled out the survey anyway, and encourage them to reframe what would have been an act of laziness or apathy as a political choice. A sabotage or abstention on Q1-12 would give much more complicated results: “30% of students just didn’t fill in the survey and another 30% participated in our wrecking/abstention strategy” isn’t such a powerful claim and our opposition could use it against us.

We also have no idea how Ipsos MORI will be able to spin the numbers when they excise the data. Imagine 70% of people fill out the survey: 25% wreck or abstain on Q1-12, 45% give genuine responses, and 30% just don’t fill it out at all. Ipsos MORI could spin these numbers lots of ways: “70% response rate!” or “75% did not participate in the wrecking/abstention strategy” (75% being true fill-outs plus people who didn’t bother to engage at all). If you convert those “junk data” participants to boycotters, you can’t argue with, or spin, “55% of students did not fill out the NSS”.

Fourth – and this is really important – boycott involves students engaging less with the survey. Our campaign will be met with a propaganda war from Ipsos MORI and universities. Every point at which a student engages with the NSS is a point at which they can be persuaded back. Ipsos MORI will be bombarding them with propaganda about how their opinion matters, don’t sell off your voice, etc. The survey page will probably be covered in pleas about how important it is to give real answers, how junk data is only hurting themselves, students and staff. When people log in to fill out junk data, they will have to engage with that, and at least some people – we don’t want to speculate too much – will be turned by it, give in and fill out real data at the last minute. By contrast, boycotters can cut the NSS out of their lives, ignore the material and therefore ignore the propaganda. So there is less chance of them turning back after we persuade them once.

Last of all, we need to be very clear that the boycott is a negotiating ultimatum. We are boycotting unless and until the government backs down on the reforms. We are not simply boycotting the NSS because it’s bad – even though it is – but because we are using it as a way to coerce the government. That logically means that if the reforms are withdrawn, or repealed, we stop boycotting. Like a strike – we go back to work if our demands are fulfilled. We must be clear about why they’re doing it and that we aren’t just lashing out at things we don’t like – we have a strategy. This does mean that if the government offers us a deal, there needs to be democratic process and consultation about whether we feel it’s enough to end the boycott.

We’re asking you to respond to the consultation and advocate a boycott. The consultation ends on August 17th.

Call out – Stop Arming Israel Demo

elbit

In Lichfield, north of Birmingham, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems manufactures engines for drones which are likely deployed by the IDF in Gaza. For several years, activist groups have targeted the factory demanding its closure and the end of UK complicity in Israel’s crimes in the occupied territories, most prominently at last year’s Block the Factory action.

The rally, organised by Birmingham Palestine Action and members of Warwick For Free Education, is intended to shut the factory down through a legal, non-violent show of force, and is set for July 6, the two-year anniversary of Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip. BPA have called for as much noise as possible so bring pots, pans, megaphones and air-horns – also bring red, green, black and white ribbons to tie on the fence, as well as kites to fly.

The Elbit factory, UAV ENGINES, is a five-minute walk from Shenstone railway station which is on the Longbridge Lichfield cross city line. Trains are every 15 minutes from Birmingham New Street station.

For more information and resources, see the Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/887783081350108/. Click attending, invite as many friends as possible, notify local Palestinian solidarity groups and come along on July 6, 11AM!

Vote IN to defend freedom of movement and workers’ rights!

aeipNCAFC is urging a vote to Remain in next week’s referendum on the UK’s European Union membership. We want to defend the rights we have, while fighting for a radically transformed Europe – one of open borders and of genuine democracy and social justice. This is based on the position our members voted for last Summer. In the coming days, we urge our members and supporters to get involved in progressive campaigning to win Remain votes on a left-wing basis.

We support and defend the guarantee of freedom of movement for EU citizens, including students travelling to study, and we want to fight to extend it to those currently locked out of “Fortress Europe”. The erosion of national divisions, and the workers’ rights and human rights protected in EU law, are also to be supported.

Nevertheless, we don’t deny that the EU, as currently constructed, is designed to secure the interests of the rich and powerful, and its governance is relatively undemocratic and bureaucratic.

However, we see no gains to be made in a retreating into our respective nation-states and raising borders. Our national governments are also constructed to serve the interests of the rich and powerful, and don’t have any more progressive potential. This is doubly true given the circumstances of this referendum – a vote to leave would see the UK crash out of the EU in a wave of nationalistic, conservative agitation against migrants, human rights and workers’ rights. This is further underlined by the murder of Jo Cox by a suspected fascist, we have released a statement on the killing here.

Instead of leaving, we seek to build and connect the left and the student and workers’ movements across Europe, and fight for open borders and a genuinely democratic and socially just Europe – and beyond. For us, a vote to remain is only the first step in a struggle to fundamentally transform Europe. That’s why we’re supporting specifically left-wing IN campaigning such as Another Europe Is Possible, and not the right-wing endorsement of the existing situation advocated by the Tory- and business-dominated Stronger In.

The next few days are crucial, and the outcome will depend on the efforts of campaigners on the ground, so we urge all our supporters to get involved. Another Europe Is Possible and Momentum have established a platform to advertise left-wing Remain campaign activity – take a look and take action!

Mourn the death of Jo Cox, and fight the nationalism that killed her

NCAFC sends its condolences and solidarity to the family, friends, colleagues and comrades of Jo Cox, the Labour MP murdered on Thursday.

Cox was known to have spoken out in favour of migrants and refugees, and against leaving the EU. The suspected killer is reported to have shouted “Britain First” as he attacked, and to have been a long-standing follower of white supremacist, fascist literature. When he was asked his name in court he said ‘Death to traitors, freedom for Britain.’ We must recognise the reality that these facts are almost certainly linked.

Current indications are that this was not an abstract, apolitical tragedy, a random act of violence, but a very political attack – the killing of a pro-migrant labour-movement politician by a nationalist – the product of a disturbing surge in right-wing nationalist and fascist and proto-fascist politics. This has not only been built by the far-right, but fed and legitimised by the nationalism and anti-migrant agitation of much “mainstream” politics too. And it has been whipped up in particular during the course of the EU referendum campaign.

As such, it demands not only a human response but a political response too. In the wake of this killing, and all those murdered by fascism and nationalism, we need to re-commit ourselves to breaking fascism and nationalism, not only at the ballot box but on the streets too.

NCAFC will be supporting the ‘After the referendum, defend all migrants’ rally next Friday and urges our members to come along and continue the fight whatever the outcome.

Final motions document for NCAFC summer conference 2016

slide_462040_6240332_free-1024x680The final motions document for NCAFC summer conference has been released. You can view it online here, and download the word document here.

There are 5 sections to this summer’s motions:

  • the education sector
  • internationalism
  • anti-racism, anti-fascism and no platform
  • the NUS
  • NCAFC’s internal processes and structures

The conference will be taking place in Edinburgh between 10th and 12th June 2016.

Statement: the resignations of Callum Townsend and David McNerlin

NCAFC Recent joiners of NCAFC and National Committee members Callum Townsend and David McNerlin resigned from NCAFC and the National Committee on Sunday. There was an ongoing investigation into complaints made against Townsend, and more recently and separately there were issues related to the conduct of both McNerlin and Townsend in their capacities as representatives of NCAFC. They resigned in the middle of ongoing internal discussions about these.

They have informed us of their intention to establish a separate organisation, the Northern Ireland Campaign Against Fees & Cuts. We have requested that they choose a name that does not imply association with the NCAFC but have been turned down. They have also taken with them social media accounts belonging to NCAFC’s Northern Ireland section. Therefore, we would like to make clear publicly that these activists, the Northern Ireland Campaign Against Fees & Cuts, and those social media accounts, have no association with NCAFC, and we cannot be responsible for their activities.

Statement on Keep The Caterers’ Victories

keep the caterersThis is a statement from the Keep The Caterers campaign at the University of Manchester, you can find them on facebook here.

In March, the University of Manchester announced plans to restructure its subsidiary company, UMC, making 46 redundancies in catering while moving the remaining staff on to ‘term-time only’ contracts. This latter move would have meant cuts of about one third to their total pay.

But now, as a result of solid negotiating by UNISON, and agitation and disruption by students, management have backed down. There will be no compulsory redundancies, no loss of hours and no pay cuts.

These victories in the fight against the university’s contemptuous treatment of its workers should embolden us all. We are strengthened in our belief in collective organising more than ever: in a sector beset by privatization and naked profiteering, it is important that students and workers come together in solidarity.

Our campaign was about challenging the audacity of an institution that made £46 million in profit last year to claim it cannot afford a living wage for its catering staff. This was clear when 96% of respondents of UNISON’s consultative ballot voted for strike action; when students occupied the Vice Chancellor’s office and disrupted a meeting in which management shamefully flaunted £600million+ plans for shiny new buildings; when hundreds of staff from across campus turned up to lunch time rallies.

It is clear that despite framing the restructure as a question of affordability the university simply sought to protect its profits. If there was money for Dame Nancy Rothwell’s living expenses, marketing campaigns and drinks receptions then there was and is money to pay catering staff a living wage and give them fair and full contracts.

UMC had served as an underhand way of employing people below the living wage which the university claimed to adhere to. It functions as as an internal outsourcing project, and though the worst excesses of the restructure have been defeated, we believe the trade union should continue a campaign for UMC workers to be brought back in house.

We also must not forget that some staff felt pressured to choose ‘voluntary’ redundancy, either because of an understandable fear of facing increasingly precarious working conditions, or a lack of faith in the ability of the union to fight their corner. This is an important reminder of the continuing need to build a strong movement. Indeed the drive towards marketisation in higher education is putting all jobs at risk.

There is power and strength that comes only from our unity, so it is important that the four unions on campus, as well as individual students and staff, continue to see our fights as one and be bold in our response to the battles ahead.

Another University is Possible.

SUMMER CONFERENCE AGENDA ANNOUNCED!

banner ncafc

The agenda for our 2016 summer conference has been announced! Check it out below, and don’t forget to register your free place here for what is set to be a fantastic weekend!

FRIDAY 
18:00-19:30: Scottish Plenary: Education in Scotland, is it really free?
19:30: Social

SATURDAY 
10:00-10:45: Registration
10:45-11:45: Plenary: The Higher Education Reforms explained
11.45-12.00: Break
12:00-13:00: Workshops A:
1- Where next for… the fight to save the NHS?
2- Effective Deportation Resistance
3- Freedom of speech and no platforming
13:00-13:45: Liberation Caucus: Women and Non Binary
13:45-14.15: Lunch
14:15-15:00: Plenary: Learning from Scotland: how can we fight the FE area reviews?
15:00-16:00: Workshops B:
1- Where next for… rent strikes and housing struggles?
2- Organising in FE: practical action planning
3- Secularism and the left
16:00-16:15: Break
16:15-17:00: Liberation Caucus: Disabled
17:00-18:00: Workshops C:
1- Where next for… the fight against Prevent?
2- Labour societies, the left and the struggle on campus
3- Sexual Violence and the left
18:00-18:15: Break
18.15-19.00: Liberation Caucus: Black
19:00-20:00: Plenary: How do we fight the HE reforms and win grants not debt?
20.00: End of Day/Social

SUNDAY 
09:30-10:00: NCAFC goes for Breakfast (At the conference venue, breakfast food to be provided)
10:00-11:00: Discussion Plenary: Antisemitism and the Left
11:00-11:45: Liberation Caucus: LGBT+
11:45-12:00: Break
12:00-13:00: Workshops D:
1- How do we make the NSS sabotage happen?
2- Decolonising the university
3- Disabled people and direct action
13:00-13:30: Lunch
13:30-15:00: Motions Debate A
15:00-15:15: Break
15:15-16:45: Motions Debate B
16:45-16:55: Break
16:55-17:10: Sections Elections
17:10-17:30: NC By-elections
17:30-17:45: Closing Remarks