Hmmm. Although the situation with respect to overbearing management in HE is rather different from that of the NHS where people die directly as a result of the disconnection between practice and management, nevertheless it is a key problem for HE that the many foolish disasters that are brought upon us are often the result of unaccountable management who, like bankers, cover their failures with self-aggrandisement and use the camouflage of reorganisation as a proxy for genuine problem-solving. In my experience, so-called HE managers, particularly since 1992, are inconsequential when it comes to 'adding value' to the student experience and they are often a burden that reduces agility and flair. It is 'front-line' academics who *are* the University. Without academics, managers are nothing; conversely academics can indeed flourish without managers. Though this could be challenging it is realistic to assume that HE could continue in this way whereas few managers, especially in the so-called corporate sectors of HE, would survive for even a day if they were called upon to teach for a living. Of course, as I am frequently reminded by my managers who object to this line of argument, HE is an internal partnership of specialisms and functions ... but it is not an equal partnership. Academics are essential; managers are not. We can live without them; they cannot live without us. Clearly it would be difficult but at least there will be more chance of genuine bottom-up debate and meaningully strategic use of resources based on actual need rather than abstractions. Imperious non-practitioners are really not completely qualified to judge the practical needs of education. They can advise, yes. They can keep the accounts, yes please. But education strategy, curriculum and pedagogy are the 'means of production' through which academics achieve educational goals. That we do not seem to own these means is an affront to our dignity and our expertise. It is alienation. Vice Chancellors and their lieutenants could do with a little more humility. Really they work for us, not the other way around. After all, funding comes to a university for its offer, which at core remains an offer provided by academics, not by senior managers who rarely teach. Why do we allow the organisation to take the cream for their expensive life styles but then simultaneously relinquish control over their behaviour, their attitudes, and as presented in this story, their blatant will-to-dominate? Who gave them that permission? Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we did. Well, time to take it back. PS: apologies for over-generalisations about 'managers'. Space is limited. There are of course some great managers out there, but they are usually facilitators rather than colonisers such as Mr Sarchet appears to be.