Guild Receives NUS Zero-Tolerance Accreditation

A fantastic new policy was unveiled by the Guild of Students on Monday, setting out the Guild’s condemnation of harassment in any form on campus. The policy, accredited by the NUS, was launched by the Guild Vice President (Welfare) Katherine East, NUS Vice President (Welfare) Pete Mercer, Guild Women’s Officer for 2011 Kelly Rogers and Guild Ethnic Minority Students’ Officer, Sacha Hassan.

A key part of the legacy of last years’ Vice President (Welfare), Luke Reynolds, this initiative is a brilliant way of ensuring that students on campus are able to stand-up and resist harassment based on religion, sex, race, disability and sexual orientation.

Pete Mercer introduced the policy, legitimately arguing “we still have sexism in our welcome weeks, homophobia in our halls and racism on our campuses” and spoke about the recent piece of research conducted by the NUS entitled “No Place for Hate”. Horrifically, one in six respondents had experienced hate crime yet less than one in ten actually reported these incidents for fear of blame, worry of shame and discomfort with talking about it. This is the first UK-wide piece of research relating to hate crime and it is so vital and so beneficial.

An article by the Independent highlights how important this policy is as it talks through the misogynistic and sexist events that are organised as part of Welcome Weeks in universities across the country. The article mortified me – harassment has no place in our universities and Students’ Unions should be at the forefront of the fight against attitudes such as this, condemning actions of those who see it as acceptable.

Kelly Rogers stated “sexual and domestic violence does affect predominately female students” and referred to an experience with a women’s association protest against a beauty pageant in the previous academic year; she and other protestors received threats, homophobic and sexist comments, simply for disagreeing with sexual objectification, possibly one of the largest threats to women in the media.

Sacha Hassan, however, rightfully asked whether this policy was simply tokenism or a PR stunt, referring to a recent example of discriminatory behaviour by University of Birmingham students, saying the person in question “made a mistake and needs to face the consequences” and this was a perfect example of why zero-tolerance needs to be a policy that the Guild adopts.

Honestly, I am surprised this policy does not exist as standard policy on all university campuses, let alone our own Guild, based in one of the most multicultural cities in the UK. It is yet another progressive piece of policy that will be vastly important in the stepping stones to equality and tackling discrimination in wider society. Using this policy, I implore students like myself to use this policy to its full potential, challenging any form of action that can be classed as harassment. The best way to defeat discrimination is to challenge it, not to ignore it.

Tories Not Welcome in Birmingham

With no aim but to express anger, frustration and dissatisfaction, the protest outside the Tory conference on Sunday had a resounding message; the Tories were not welcome in Birmingham. If the public had their way (which they rarely do), the Tories would have hosted their conference as far away from the ICC as possible.

Crying out with the crowds, it was more than obvious to me that the atmosphere was one of genuine rage. Across both the public and private sectors, the cuts are hitting hard; their consequences deep and far-reaching. From railway workers, to fire-fighters, to lecturers at our University, there was cross-spectrum resistance to the Tory presence. And, despite police officers being unable to protest along with us by law, the liaison officers were sympathetic to our cause. “Birmingham Grannies against the Cuts” were a particular favourite group of mine; not least because it shows that Government policies are spanning generations and the most vulnerable are, despicably, getting the rough end of the stick whilst the most fortunate are cut more and more slack.

Students, including NUS officers Vicki Baars and Aaron Kiely, also lined the ranks, demonstrating against raised tuition fees and continuing further and higher education cuts. Asked why they were demonstrating, Mathematics student, Ollie Jones said they were “angry” with the cuts that the Tory party were making in Government, particularly in opposition to changes to the NHS.

Vicki Baars, NUS Vice President for Union Development hit the spot when she tweeted, “at the rally against #cpc12, the Conservative led government has tripled Tuition Fees, introduced FE fee’s for over 24’s… Let’s defend edu!”

Inspiring speeches were given by general secretaries from public sector unions including the UCU, RMT and Unite. Christine Blower, general secretary for NUT, addressed the crowds “there is a will to privatise our education” and cited that one in five young people can’t find a job, while Bob Crow, RMT, called for re-nationalisation of the railways.

Yet, the protest was disappointing; in spite of a supposed five thousand attendees, it felt quiet and too jovial, and both the march and the rally were over in two and a half hours. Once it had finished, it had finished. It was by far lacking the passion of previous protests. Whilst timid voices shouted for a tax on the rich, the one percent, Cameron stood, unscathed and with security for protection, that his Government would not be introducing a mansion tax. Once again, our demands were ignored.

Fortunately, I can confidently say that the upcoming protests by the TUC and the NUS in London will be much more impactful. If #demo2012 is anything like the student protests of 2010, we will see fifty thousand take on Westminster and show this shambles of a Government that we will not just sit back and take what they throw at us. For ourselves, and future generations, we will say “no more”.

Photo by Victoria Kettlewell

(as published on Redbrick at http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/tories-not-welcome-in-birmingham/)

No Means No

The discourse of rape has been on many tongues lately; from high-profile politicians to celebrities to liberation groups, there has been controversy over the definition of term. The National Union of Students (NUS) found itself in this position last Wednesday, when a motion on the subject was proposed by the Women’s Campaign.

Heavy media coverage of the allegations against Julian Assange has ensured that the issue remains in the spotlight. The Wikileaks founder is alleged to have raped and molested two females in 2010, but has successfully sought asylum in the Ecuadorian assembly on the premise that he believes he will extradited to the USA for separate offences relating to the aforementioned website.

It’s a case which has sparked wider debate and dispute in the public sphere, bringing the definition of rape under scrutiny. Todd Akin, a supporter of USA Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, said that women can prevent pregnancy in “a legitimate rape” and, thus, conceiving a child is rare. Furthermore, George Galloway, Respect MP for Bradford West, ludicrously referred to a man inserting his penis into a sleeping woman as “bad sexual etiquette”. Thankfully, these comments sparked global outrage, but in many circumstances, compassion and understanding was offered to both rapists and those who spoke of rape as above, so-called rape apologists. The usual, shameful excuses were trotted out; that women put themselves in provocative situations via dress or body language, and that rape is excusable if the victim is in a relationship with the perpetrator.

Consequently, the NUS Women’s Campaign called for no more, presenting a motion to the NUS’ National Executive Council (NEC) calling for the long-standing no-platform policy (which previously only covered fascists) to be extended to cover rape apologists. However, several NEC members (including Aaron Kiely, NUS Black Students’ Officer) proposed an amendment requesting that the NUS support Assange’s request for a guarantee from the Swedish authorities that he would not be extradited to the USA. It was also argued that the no-platform policy should remain as it is, due to the unique threat fascist pose to liberation students and democratic structures. That six NEC members left the room in tears over comments made in the debate is indicative of its severity and the issue’s importance.

Mercifully, the motion passed with twenty four votes to six. Kelley Temple, NUS Women’s Officer said that the “NUS believes that there is a culture of undermining rape victims and rejects attempts to glorify, joke about or dismiss rape. The motion passed confirms that NUS shall not offer a platform to speakers who are rape deniers of apologists, or support events where such individuals speak.” Aaron Kiely was unavailable for comment.

This is great step forward for the movement, but also for culture in general. It is fortunate that the array of ignorant comments made throughout the past few months has at least led to one progressive piece of anti-rape legislation. No means no, and there are no exceptions.


(as published on Redbrick at http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/97237/)