After the well-publicised failings of campus democracy so far this year (see CG31), it came as a surprise to many that the Emergency Members’ Meeting on 1 Decem- ber actually got going.
More surprising still was the queue of around 150 people who waited for up to an hour in the rain just to participate. Even af- ter approximately 70 had been turned away (once the venue had reached capacity) a re- maining 30 students stuck it out in case any of those already inside chose to leave.
Such enthusiasm was the result of the most controversial agenda for years. The first item: “Does UCLU have confidence in Malcolm Grant as President and Provost of UCL?” had already ignited vigorous online debate (albeit from the usual suspects), while questions over the Union’s exact stance on Pro-Choice, and on whether UCLU should take a position on global issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict drew a large and di- verse crowd.
Research Grant
No confidence in Grant was eventu- ally confirmed by 160 votes to 86 (28 ab- stentions), with Trotsky Inc darling Michael Chessum boldly describing Prof Grant as “odious”. Chessum also attacked the Provost for associating UCL with “one of the most controversial and divisive” Coalition policies through his appointment as NHS Commis- sioning Board Chair.
Chessum also argued on the logistical basis that Grant would become a ‘part-time Provost’ following his NHS appointment – a questionable claim considering that after only a few months in his Commissioning board role his time commitment will fall from two days a week to one, allowing him to maintain his previous four days a week at College.
Yet dirtier tricks were on show as Ches- sum claimed that when accompanying David Cameron as a Business Ambassador “[Grant] was part of a delegation that sold arms to various people in the Middle East, though I don’t know what they’re doing in Tahrir Square now.”
Passionate support for Grant was pro- vided by Alex Rossdeutsch, a final year medi- cal student, who strongly defended Grant’s research record. UCLU Conservative Soci- ety committee members Sam Firth and Matt Corner also waded in, painting Grant as nonpartisan and as a league table magician respectively. Again there was a whiff of foul play: the global league table in which UCL typically performs best didn’t exist before Grant’s tenure, making comparison impos- sible.
On the day following the meeting, Grant’s office confirmed that he had not yet made any comment on the result, while a UCL spokesperson said, “We don’t believe that this vote necessarily reflects majority opinion among the student body at UCL – many students were unable to get into the meeting.”
While historically it has taken sustained opposition from senior staff to oust a Prov- ost, given the Eastern Bloc ebullience that greeted the result, The Cheese Grater eagerly awaits the next move. This is bound to be either the removal of Grant from office or the ceremonial presentation of his body on a gibbet in the quad.
Aborted
The motion to take an explicitly pro- choice Union stance met with stiff opposition from several sides. Some considered the mo- tion pointless, given existing support offered by the Welfare Officer and Rights and Advice Centre.
Others thought the requirement to in- vite a pro-choice and pro-life speaker, as well as an independent chair, to any society event focussed on termination was too meddle- some.
That all of the arguments against the motion were made by men was a source of rage to one member of the audience who, when the floor was opened to questions, called the spectacle “disgusting”. This was decreed to be “not a question, but a sad state- ment of fact” by Union Chair, Zubair Idris. The motion was defeated 124 – 88 (24 ab- stentions) to cries of “shame”.
One Union, one view?
Unlikely to calm proceedings was the last motion on the agenda, which would have signalled intent for the Union to avoid taking stances on divisive global issues. More controversial however, is that the motion would also have overturned Union support for Palestinian right to education, dutifully rubber stamped by Union Council the previ- ous week.
The main bone of contention was that the motion focussed on two entirely separate issues: whether more policy should be set at Members’ Meetings and referenda, and what the Union position on Israel/Palestine ought to be.
As the proposers denied that they were against the Palestinian right to education, but proceeded to plough on with their attempts to overturn Union support for it, debate be- came quite heated in the room.
Edwin Clifford-Coupe receiving an of- ficial ticking off for heckling from the Chair, though this was somewhat unsurprising giv- en his track record (see CG31). The motion eventually fell by 131 – 55 (10 abstentions), leaving Council’s decision intact.
Unfortunately, due to the number of people who could not get into the meeting, all three items will be put to an online refer- endum in the New Year – definitive answers on Grant, termination and Palestinian educa- tion will have to wait, although until the ref- erendum reaches quorum, the EMM results will stand.
It therefore remains to be seen if the UCL campus actually takes these positions on Grant, termination and Palestinian educa- tion, or if (as is generally the case in student politics) these are just the views of those who queued first and have the loudest voices.