A ¡°silence of the v-cs¡± in public debate means that there risks being no serious discussion of higher education policy in the run-up to the general election, a panel debate on the 2015 party manifestos has heard.

Speakers of all political persuasions expressed scepticism that political parties and university heads actually wished to have a wide-open debate about higher education.

It is anticipated that Labour will pledge to cut maximum tuition fees from ?9,000 a year to ?6,000, but so far few other potential election policies have been trailed.

Speaking at ¡°What should the political parties promise on education in 2015?¡±, an event on 7 June hosted by the thinktank Policy Exchange with Times Higher Education as media partner, Thomas Docherty, professor of English and comparative literature at the University of Warwick, said that ¡°silent¡± vice-chancellors ¡°seem to feel they always have to be diplomatic and realistic¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°That means that they wish to ensure they say nothing that might jeopardise their individual standing with government ministers¡±, leaving them unable to take ¡°risks¡± in public debate about higher education, said Professor Docherty, who is currently suspended from his Warwick post for unexplained reasons.

Mark Leach, editor-in-chief of the WonkHE blog, said that among universities there was a ¡°real hope¡± that tuition fees do not become an election issue.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Noting that there were some vice-chancellors who had ¡°very strong¡± dissenting views about increased tuition fees, he added that he was ¡°uncomfortable with the conspiracy of silence¡± on higher education policy, which during the past five years had been made in the ¡°shadows¡±.

Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham, put what he called a ¡°pusillanimous¡± attitude by vice-chancellors towards the government down to the fact that they did not want to upset their ¡°monopoly customer¡±.

Unless they won more financial autonomy, they would continue to be ¡°afraid to step out of line¡±.

Rachel Wenstone, vice-president for higher education at the National Union of Students, added that to judge from the union¡¯s engagement with the parties so far, ¡°higher education will be as far down on their list of things to talk about as possible¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

But there was one dissenting voice on the five-member panel: Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and former special adviser to David Willetts, the minister for universities and science. He said it was ¡°absurd¡± to claim that there had been no proper debate on higher education policy during this Parliament.

¡°We had rioting students¡­we have mission groups coming out of our ears, we have Universities UK¡­there is a debate about higher education and it¡¯s been taking place. You may not like the answer, but the debate has been happening,¡± he said.

In an interview with THE in March, Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the vice-chancellors¡¯ organisation Universities UK, said it would not be ¡°helpful¡± if student fees and funding became an election issue, citing the need for ¡°stability¡±.

Vice-chancellors have been active in some public debates. The University of East Anglia¡¯s Edward Acton and others have spoken out against government visa policies that have been seen as damaging to the UK¡¯s recruitment of international students. And last month, vice-chancellors representing the entire sector used an open letter to stress the benefits of European Union membership to their universities¡¯ success.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

david.matthews@tsleducation.com