IN RECENT weeks, UCL Union officers have debated whether to introduce a ‘No Platform’ policy, which would bar racists, homophobes and various other evildoers from being able to voice discriminatory opinions in any Union function or office. But without getting into a discussion on the merits or faults of the No-Platform, the Union has been remarkably ham-fisted in its approach to the policy.
Charged with reviewing motions for accuracy and legality before debate, Governance Committee proved a stunning display of the Union’s glaring faults: timewasting, political cowardice and a profound absence of any intellectualism. After receiving the motion, GC felt compelled to seek lengthy advice on the legality of implementing it. This is to ignore the fact that the legality of the motion is perhaps the least credible of any potential objections to a No-Platform. It is already an offence under Union regs, the UCL anti-harassment code, and section 18 of the Public Order Act of 1986 to incite racial hatred, whilst any other offences relating to discrimination are similarly enshrined in code at one or more of these levels of legislation. Loads of Unions have got No-Platforms, all without having to make court appearances because freedom of speech under the Education Act (No. 2) of 1986, only safeguards freedom of speech “within the law.”
So the most credible objection to the No-Platform have been to suggest that there are already safeguards against bigotry. Not for the Union. After accepting the mind-boggling advice of College that the No-Platform was illegal, Governance Committee voted not to allow the motion to be debated. One can only infer that political cowardice and legislative laziness was to blame for this decision, and a desire simply to prevent the motion being possibly implemented. But the most damning thing about the whole episode was the fact that the Union had already (erroneously) decided in previous years that a No-Platform was illegal. A quick search of uclu.org brings up a Fingleton-era document from the ‘How your Union works section’ of 2003, which includes “This Union believes: that this (No-Platform) policy is a violation of the Education Act (No. 2) Act (Section 43) and the UCL Union Constitution.” Duh.
Keep Whatever Free
Continuing with the theme of timewasting, perhaps you will have noticed a garish banner plastered across the front quad of UCL, featuring the interminable slogan ‘UCL students do it 24/7.’
The slogan has a lot of students rather flummoxed. Of 39 students polled (including our unusually clued-up editorial conference), less than half knew what it meant. Void of any other information, the banner stands as another outstanding testament to the vacant minds behind Union campaigns. It transpires that the banner is actually part of some genius campaign to get UCL libraries to open for 24 hours during the summer term. [Actually, not for 24 hours, just extended hours. The slogan is just there for...er... -Ed.] How do I know this? Because a rather timid looking girl came up to me outside the Cruciform and asked me to sign her petition to College.
The campaign is a project of Education & Welfare Officer Maz Young. I can’t recall if 24 hour libraries was one of her she policies during the election campaign last year (I can’t recall if had any policies), but I certainly recall it being a central plank in my bullish manifesto. [Despite which Maz beat him - Ed.] The idea is, after all, a splendid one. But I would certainly not have pursued it in such a lazy, incompetent manner.
Petitions are means for groups which are excluded from the decision-making process to attempt to acquire mass support for their pet projects. They are frequently carried out by wackos, and seldom succeed. So to use a petition to support 24 hour libraries is a ludicrous waste of time when sabbatical officers have a plethora of institutional and informal methods for dealing with the college administration. Hell, they meet with the Provost every term! They sit in endless committees each month, surrounded by the people who have the power to change the way UCL works. To resort to petitions is to completely miss the point! And does anyone seriously believe students will decline the offer to have later opening libraries if all they have to do is sign a bit of paper?
Intrepid Clubs and Societies’ Officer Natasha Davis did explain that they only have an hour with the Provost, and he is more interested in talking about ULU. We suggest that the Union’s officers do their job and try to steer him towards the required topics.
In the permanent tragicomedy that is UCL Union, there is only one more campaign that is more idiotic. The ‘Keep Wednesdays free’ campaign is proudly trumpeted on the Union website, and has been allocated a £1500 budget out of the campaigns budget of £6750 (the figure was hard to find, since Maz’s predecessor David Renton didn’t supply it, with customary incompetence (CG 4)). But at the very beginning of the year, every single student at UCL received an email from Vice-Provost Michael Worton which specifically noted that the college supports keeping Wednesday afternoons free! The fact is that there is no sudden rash of evil scheduling, that almost everyone, everywhere at UCL has got a free Wednesday if they choose to have one. To waste money on posters, badges – and yes – individually wrapped wristbands is to neglect the real issues that require real campaigning effort.
But hey, it must take a lot of effort to run a fucking petition.
MSSWho?
Pity the invisible Medical Students and Sites Officer (MSSO). A poll was posted on the UCLU website by the MSSO, Luke Yahanpath asking if anyone had ever heard of him. On the first attempt, he managed to vote that he hadn’t heard of himself. On the second attempt, he decided he actually had. In the two weeks since this slightly schizophrenic behaviour, not a single response from people who know who he is.
It’s things like this that I’m going to miss about UCL Union. Or not.
Correction
Our February issue contained an article on p.2 in which it was stated that the Union’s sabbatical officers meet with the Provost every week. This is not true; they meet en bloc with him only every term (though it appears that last year they used to meet him every week).
It was further suggested that Natasha Davis said that the sabbs meet him every week for an hour. In fact, she only said that they meet him for an hour, without specifying how often.
These inaccuracies were owing to a mistake on my part I failed to correct them before going to press. I apologise to Natasha for any inconvenience caused - Ed.
The Cheese Grater seeks to correct all inaccuracies, and resolve all complaints, as quickly as possible. We have bound ourselves by the Press Complaints Comission’s Editors’ Code of Practice (viewable on www.pcc.org.uk). You should contact the editor at our e-mail address (on back page) in the first instance if you have a complaint.