The myth of choice in the fees debate

Read this letter published in the Guardian today, it makes sense.

The Guardian, Thursday 30 December 201

Do others feel deeply patronised by the appointment of Simon Hughes to "frame an effective message" about the changes to further and higher education (U-turn hint, 29 December)? The government's assumption is that those who protest have misunderstood the facts. But the coalition's policies are filled with contradictions; one lies in the pervasive rhetoric of choice. Students will take their loans and choose the best university for them, producing a free market in higher education that will lead to the growth of some institutions and academic subjects and the collapse of others. Citizen petitions will select new laws to be debated in parliament. This rhetoric merely conceals the coalition's appeal to economic necessity: there is no choice, they tell us. If you oppose our attempts to reshape public services, or higher education, you are being childish, failing to face the facts, disrupting the great work of national recovery. You are part of an almost "feral" mob. This technique is familiar to all parents: if a child resists (going to school etc) offer a small trivial choice which creates the illusion of control. Would you like the Moomin lunch box or the Fireman Sam one? What this tiny area of choice tries to conceal is the child's lack of autonomy. But, as every parent also knows, there are choices, and they are made by the parent. Economists disagree over the economic crisis; the coalition's deeply ideological "reforms" are not driven by economic necessity and it is this knowledge that leads large numbers of citizens, of every age, class and level of education, to take to the streets. The fear of dissent is what drives the violence with which protest is being policed. As a member of that "feral" mob on 9 December – and mother of injured student Alfie Meadows – I know that a party which could not gain a majority at surely the most propitious moment in recent history is trying to use the language of necessity to bring in changes that will reduce equality. Susan Matthews Roehampton University