Down Your Referendum

Once more with feeling! Your Union is pro-Provost, pro-choice and still quite provocative

UCLU faced one of the most controversial sets of referendum questions in its history as decisions raged over whether the student body has confidence in Professor Malcolm Grant as Provost (it does), whether the Union takes a pro-choice stance (it does), and whether it should be members’ meetings that decide international issues (it should). After all those results spoilers, read on for the dirty tricks, lows and blows of the campaigns...

No Yes Provost

After a fortnight of hard campaigning, the UCLU referendum dished out a big hearty bowl of confidence in the Provost, only for it to be immediately spat in by those crying foul play by UCL management.

The pro-Grant campaign won motion one (Does UCLU have confidence in Malcolm Grant as President and Provost of UCL?) by a significant margin, achieving 1,699 votes to 1,185. Alex Nesbitt, pro-Grant campaigner and former Medical and Postgraduate Officer said “the result is a credit to UCL, its students and the campaign team who worked so hard to get students to vote. Although I share the view of many of the team that this is a question that should not have been posed in the first place, it is important that students have the opportunity to put forward their own views and arguments”. Hannes Ansorg, pro-Grant campaigner and Economics and Finance Society President, called Grant “a remarkable man doing a remarkable job”.

There was disquiet among the No-Provost camp at the result of motion one. Michael Chessum, former Education and Campaigns Officer and poster boy of the Left, said on hearing the news “I’m getting tired of student politics, not because I don’t like democratic politics – I’m OK with the idea of having to win people over. I just don’t like it if the people you have to win over are deranged public school boys with no arguments or thoughts”.

Abort! Abort!

By supporting motion 2 UCLU declared itself pro-choice by a large margin (2,001 votes to 818) and becomes affiliated to Abortion Rights, a national pro-choice campaign group. The Union will now step up its campaigning and information on abortion. Whenever a UCLU society discusses termination they must invite both pro-choice and pro-life speakers and an independent chair. Annie Tidbury, pro-choice campaigner, described the result as “a good day for common sense”.

Anti-motion two campaigner Diana Doat said: “We are concerned that this could set a precedent for other such divisive issues at UCL. Societies such as Catholic Society, who by their nature are pro-life, are now no longer able to express themselves without first warning the Union and inviting a pro-choice speaker in order that the so-called ‘balance’ can be imposed.”

The result caused uproar from the national campaign LIFE. Spokesperson Michaela Aston said: “The language used here suggests that closed minds, illiberal attitudes and petty intolerance are behind these motions. Many student unions around Britain have been adopting policies to restrict the expression of pro-life views. UCLU are now taking this petty authoritarianism a step further, pursuing a vendetta against pro-life groups with the weak justification of ensuring ‘balance’.”

One Union, No Palestine!

The result of motion three saw UCLU overturn support for the international Palestinian Right to Education Campaign and ensured that all future decisions on international issues will be decided at members’ meetings or referenda. It was a close race, with 1,337 yes votes and 1,005 noes, as well as a whopping 833 abstentions. UCLU Friends of Palestine Society President Layth Hanbali blamed his campaign’s loss on these abstentions, saying it showed that the motion was “confusing”. Proposer Benjamin Rodin, said “We’re happy that the students who did vote chose to reject the authoritarian tendencies of Union Council”.

Green and pleasant land

The campaign that will hold most vividly in UCL students’ collective memory is that of the ‘Yes Provost’s’ banterrific, sports team dominated ‘lads’ who truly scraped the barrel of demagogic populism to secure votes. Tom Lewis, Student Trustee, best summed up the intellectual scope of the ‘Yes Provost’ campaign saying: “I was a green man partly for love of painting myself green.” The campaign also made a YouTube video featuring pictures of and statistics about Grant backed by LMFAO’s ‘Sexy and I Know It’. Tim Rees Jones, finance and Services Officer, described the ‘Yes Provost’ campaign as “moronic” and “lower than the lowest common denominator.”

The anti-Grant campaign fought a grumpier crusade, endlessly showering disinterested students with dour leaflets and an ominous scatter-plot. However, few outside this leftist-clique shared their resolve to banish the ‘evil moustachioed overlord’, the hoi polloi generally responding to the zealots with little more than a yawn. There have been rumours that UCL Estates and Facilities staff deliberately took down the ‘No’ campaign’s posters while leaving the ‘Yes’ campaign’s untouched, but these allegations cannot be verified.

Tom Lewis called the ‘No’ campaign “politically centred” and said that the ‘Yes’ campaign was about “competence” over politics. “Politics complicates everything. The main job of [Grant] is to raise money, funds and the name of a university. I realise in order to do this he has to be chummy with the right people and at the moment those are Conservatives.” We would remind Tom Lewis that once a public figure becomes ‘chummy’ with the government, then support for that figure becomes as entwined in politics as criticism does.

Hacked up

Yes-Provost, No-Provost relations came to a head on the evening of 25 January in the basement of The Huntley. Gareth Chan, RUMS Officer (whilst under the influence of alcohol) confronted Michael Chessum, who was distributing leaflets. Chan approached Chessum, asking “Why are you here?” Chessum’s laughter was silenced as Chan pinned him down, ripped the leaflets from his hand and growled “You’re not welcome here”. UCLU security intervened before fisticuffs ensued. Chan claims that ascribing the word assault to the incident is “factually incorrect”, however his current ban from UCLU bars and cafes may make his rumoured campaign for Medical and Postgraduate Officer quite tricky.

It’ll be alright with Rex Knight!

Behind the scenes, UCLU Trustee Board’s relationship with College authorities has become increasingly fractious. On 9 December Rex Knight, Vice Provost (Operations), sent a letter to trustees highlighting technical irregularities with the Emergency Members’ Meeting on 1 December. Knight wrote that the referendum posed “potential huge reputational impact for both UCL and UCLU” and claimed that a no-confidence vote would “have a significant impact on the relationship, our approach to future investment and our view of the roles and responsibilities of the Union”.

As the referendum went ahead, Knight waded into the debate again, sending out an all-student email mid-way through the voting period, co-signed by all Vice Provosts. It encouraged students to place their confidence in Malcolm Grant. This was swiftly followed by a rebuttal from UCLU.

Knight’s email prodded UCLU to vote confidence in Malcolm Grant through cascading superlatives and well-worn clichés of “engag[ing] in debate” and “voic[ing] your opinions”. The 750-strong spike in hits on the UCLU website that followed the email is held by many to be a substantial determinant of the final confidence result.

Rees Jones described Knight’s email as “a very unfortunate interference in UCLU’s democratic function”. An agreeably defiant James Skuse, Democracy and Communications Officer, added that the email was “ill-advised” and “going towards interference”.

Asked whether UCL acknowledged its interference in Union democracy, a College spokesperson said: “basically the answer is no!” adding, “It doesn’t seem unreasonable for the university to contribute to (the) debate” and “student politics have always enabled small numbers of individuals to pursue their interests, without having any impact on the life of the University”. UCLU Trustee Board is currently composing a response to this email.

Grant himself has not met with sabbatical officers since 5 December, the only such meeting since the no confidence result at December’s EMM. Future meetings would be arranged when the officers indicate they would like them reinstated.

The UCLU referenda and their Rex Knight sideshow attracted a whopping 14.73 per cent turnout - the highest since records began. With wounds smarting on all of the losing sides, student politicians can at last give themselves a pat on the back for drawing a degree of interest. We hope that the UCLU elections maintain such drama.