With apologies to our non-student readers
Guild Television (GTV) wanted to change their name to Birmingham University Student Television (BUST). This requires a change in their constitution, which can only happen with the approval of Guild Council. The proposer stood up, for her first time, and made a good and sensible case about why her committee felt it necessary to change the society’s name. This was recieved by certain Guild Councillors, with a torrent of attacks, of a senseless and petty nature. We were told, laughably, that BUST was sexually discriminatory, we were told that their solution (which they came up with to suit the needs of their society) was inappropriate and ill-thought out and we were told that BUST was inaccurate as it didn’t coincide with the University’s own re-branding, to the University of Birmingham.
This process has deeply embarrased me and the involvement I have had with the Guild. It seems to me that every time a student wants to change something, they go to the basement and ask advice, and get told to go to GC. Then they sit, very patiently through a long and tedious meeting, awaiting the discussion on their motion. GC then insists on nit-picking, badgering and criticising whatever motion they put infront of us.
We witnessed this last year with CVG who wanted to petition the Guild to build a games room, CVG now no longer turn up to Guild Council because of the abuse they recieved. As we discovered during the 25 minute debate (on something as insignificant as a name-change) none of those who raised objections had emailed or approached the committee to seek mutual resolution. Instead, they awaited until the discussion, to ambush and publically humiliate those who sought our help to ensure their society continues to grow and move forward.
Why do we persist on navel-gazing and questioning why we don’t have proper student activism? The answer is obvious, we turn them off!
Once GC becomes a proper body of mature discussion, where we open our minds to new ideas, then we will get proper student level involvement.
Shameful.
It was completley shit. Considering we passed things which are usually far more contentious, such as the pro-choice motion, with no debate whatsoever, I think GC was just baying for a good discussion- we haven’t had one in ages. I really thought that by the end of it people would vote for the name change, despite the nit-picking, really disappointed to see they didn’t. What might have been a five minute “jokey” motion for many will actually have massive implications for GTV.
With respect to Dominique (Guild womens officer elect), I’m sure she has womens best interests at heart… but I don’t find BUST offensive and I have yet to find any other women who do.
I wasn’t even at this meeting but the fact that I can picture it so easily is testament to just how bad it can get sometimes. A real shame.
While I respect the autonomy of liberation campaigns and never sort to undermine their arguments I was disapointed with the attitude of many other Guild Councillors, a point which I made last night. As the GTV committee, they are responsible for recruiting members and representing Bham at national awards etc. Why GC took the attitude that it had the right to micro-manage the actions of this society, on an issue they had the support of the entire Executive Committee, I will never know.
Last night one sab commented to me it was the lowest point she had ever known Guild Council to reach. I don’t disagree with her.
Absolutely! I could see the way it was going because I spoke to a few of their members before the meeting. I knew what they had been planning but the rest of Guild Council clearly did not (and my comments last night were an attempt to allow them to show Guild Council where there name change fits in with their greater rebranding process, for example plans of new shows etc ) I really feel sorry for them as they have clearly put a lot of time, money and effort into this rebrand and last night’s events will only serve to put them back three months.
Unbelievable! Very disappointed!
As always I have no opinion (you know what I mean) but I would like to make two points:
Firstly, Tom, you state that CVG no longer turn up to Guild Council because of their negative experience. No matter how true this statement is, I believe it is unjustified. CVG sent justified apologies for the meeting. This is a fact.
Secondly, people have different opinions and people can disagree. Our guild values its liberation groups and therefore it also values their concerns. It is the duty of such groups to stand up in Guild Council and create awareness of such issues no matter how trivial they might seem. I, as a male, cannot speak on behalf of the womens’ association but I believe the reason we have such associations in place is that such considerations get voiced. If the people who represent approximately half of the students of our campus believe there is a point that needs to be made, then such a comment must be made.
This is democracy. It is not shameful.
******
Furthermore, regarding Tom M’s comment:
You say a Sabb yesterday commented that it was the lowest that Guild Council has ever got!?
I strongly disagree. Yesterday’s Guild Council may have seen a discussion that seemed trivial to some. But in reality, it showed that the Guild’s democratic bodies give its liberation campaigns a voice. Another day it might not be women’s concerns which are raised but those of disabled students, international students or ethnic minority students. I reiterate, yesterday has shown that the Guild does not make decisions about issues that may concerns the aforementioned groups without providing them a say.
This is no sign of ‘lowness’. It is a sign of strength.
****
Again, with respect to the WO elect, while she may and some of her constituents may have felt offended by it, I have yet to find another woman, or indeed man, who considers BUST offensive to women (and I am a pretty staunch feminist). I am worried that the objection will have thrown the women’s campaign into a bad light. Liberation campaigns are important, but their sanctity sometimes bothers me- given that the proposers of the motion were female and they stated that most of their society is too, I think it should have been clear that it was not a clear cut issue. There is huge range of opinions within any political movement, and every women has a different opinion of what feminism is; the WO elect felt that BUST was offensive, the women in GTV didn’t. Same as the LGBTQ were divided over whether or not to add a Q.
Remember, every woman in the Guild is a member of the Women’s association, so the comments of the GTV women should have been taken just as seriously as those from the WO elect if we’re going to go down this route of respecting autonomy.
In other bust related news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7402480.stm
its an omen.
I’ve just replied to another thread on this so I shall say the same thing here:
We need to put this into perspective and in order to do this we need to address the MEANING ATTRIBUTED by the writers to the word. When I spoke to them after Guild Council they meant “bust” as in the verb not the noun. This factor has been completely ignored and is something which is important if we are going to discuss the autonomy of student groups.
Innuendo has been allowed to ravage a perfectly good idea and I feel that this is a shame.
Right, Rich alerted me to this a bit ago. Frankly I’m baffled! To anyone who doesn’t know, I’m on the Women’s Network committee, alongside Domeneque and personally on this matter I have to take a professional difference of opinion. I do not find this an offensive term and I fully support GTV’s change and rebranding. People taking things like this so seriously gives feminism a bad name – it was not intended to be offensive and to add a further point, the now mostly defunct (in that it is more a part of the Socialist Society) Stop the War faction at the university was called ‘BUSTW’ or Bust the War (Birmingham University Stop the War) and this didn’t offend me either. Neither did ‘Cock Soc’ (which is verging on very poor taste). Next we will have people questioning ‘BUDS’ and ‘BUNS’. For goodness sake, there’s really nothing wrong with a cheeky name that people will remember – I am a really, really staunch feminist, and I will not accept any form of sexual discrimination, but I fully support GTV on this and I hope you can rest assured that not all of the women’s representation at the university feels this way.
Well, I’m going to take the unpopular side of this argument then. As a prefix, I didn’t get to see this motion before it happened at GC due to the papers being unavailable online (dead link), and I think this goes for quite a few other people too. I don’t believe there was any “ambush” that went on.
I was quite torn over this motion, and I think a lot of people were too. On the one hand I support self-determination – that is, a society should be able to decide, within reason, how it is run. However, although I think BUST is an awful name which makes the society LESS accessible to students, there are other considerations. Sorry, and no disrespect is intended to the committee who are making great progress in revitalising the society, but that’s what I think.
The very reason why this motion required a 2/3 majority is that GTV is a standing society. We have these special societies – currently, at least – because they have history, influence, connotations, relationships and impacts on the Guild that go beyond any one committee. To use a crude example, if a few Redbrick committee members decided one year that they were going to change its name, I would hope this is a decision that would be scrutinised carefully in the wider Guild community – and, if felt necessary, overruled.
I had a small involvement in GTV in 05/06, the year when it was “resurrected” after many years of dormancy. That year’s committee and volunteers deliberately revived and updated the GTV brand, and were proud of the name and the relationship with the Guild. Although the society has always struggled to keep members throughout each year, the name was never a part of this – at Freshers Fairs, it was always immediately obvious what the “TV” bit meant. They attracted a lot of attention, and it was only retention that was a problem.
Anyway, I suggested postponing the decision and discussing it at SAE because I thought that would help make the right long-term decision with all the considerations taken into account. As well as the above, I think if all interested parties put their heads together for a while we could come up with a better name. We had half a dozen better names shouted out during GC! I think that unfortunately the name change was a rash decision, and considering it further should have an absolutely minimal impact on the committee’s preparations for next year.
Innuendo-wise, I think it’s perfectly clear to everyone that BUST isn’t meant to refer to a woman’s bust. Then again, it doesn’t really scream out “television” either…
BULS, your clock’s wrong!
I come at this from a slightly different angle compared to many of the previous posts. Yesterday I was one of the many Guild Councillors who were concerned over the name change due to the ordering of the words “Birmingham” and “University”, not the connotations the name may bring about.
Over recent years the University has spent tremendous amounts of our tuition fees on, what I believe to be, a successful re-brand. The Guild had to follow suit and as such unfortunately has lost the BUGS acronym.
For a standing society to come to GC and wish to change its name to something that does not correlate with this re-brand, it is perfectly acceptable for the motion to be challenged. Contrary to Tom’s belief that GC “turned away potential student activists”, the comments made by Guild Councillors were constructive throughout the meeting and considered the long term implications of having “Birmingham University” in that order.
Cheers, Simon. Superior attention to detail as ever. Clock is now changed! Hopefully.
A lot of societies use BU___. If GC want to move in line with UoB branding, should they change too? What does the VPSAD think?
The VPSAD supported the name change.
James and I think very much the same on the majority of Guild issues so I won’t repeat my thoughts on the subject here.
My main gripe was indeed the BU. Page 12 of the Guild Members Handbook 07/08 says the following: “So why have we dropped the name BUGS I hear you ask… you may well notice you are not at ‘Birmingham University’ but rather ‘University of Birmingham’”.
It just seemed to me that changing to BUST would be taking a step back in time – I do however appreciate all the reasoning put forward by the very eloquent committee members present at GC.
|| Sam
Do bear in mind that you are a students’ union in order to be autonomous from your University. The University’s rebranding exercise does not force the Guild or any of its societies to follow suit.
Also, if someone asks me the University I attend, I almost invariably say “Birmingham University.” Try asking your friends what Uni they attend, and I’m sure they’ll almost always say the same thing.
Incidentally, if I were chairing this society, I would probably market it however I liked, as long as it was officially known as whatever is says in the constitution. BULS was actually UBLS for most of the time I was chair, but it was still called BULS to most of its members.
Although I’m probably not allowed to say it without my assertion being seconded from a member of every liberation group (and I’m sure everyone, everywhere needs some sort of liberation – I know I do), I think any group which benefits from arbitrary protection needs to remember that with rights come responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to maintain confidence in that group, and there is always a danger of being “the campaigner who cried wolf” in a number of contexts, i.e. if you systematically campaign against things that even your own members don’t consider a problem, you are likely to lose public confidence… something which you may need when you have a genuine grievance.
Now I’ve lit that torch paper, I’ll be off…
Could they get away with calling themselves what they like? Are we even technically BULS? (asks the new secretary :S )
haha i posted that as you typed…
After standing up to make the first ‘No’ speech there was an audible groan. For me it’s that which makes GC particularly daunting to outsiders and puts people off.
From what I recall, when I stood up no-one else had their hands up to make a ‘No’ speech, but what was quite clear afterwards was that many people had objections or questions.
You may feel that points raised were trivial, but to some people they were important, and I think it shows GC’s strength that those views could be voiced. Accusing others of ‘ambushing’, while some people I found rather offensive with how impolite they were, is only going to make apathy worse because it will put people off from speaking in the first place.
Also just noticed this in the new Guild Bye-Laws, Article 9:
Privileges of a Student Group, subject to the Disciplinary Procedure, include:
Use of the prefix “University of Birmingham” and/or “Guild of Students” in its name
Does that mean B.U.S.T. would have become known as the University of Birmingham Birmingham University Student Television?
what’s more worrying is not that this was a debate, but that this was the only thing remotely resembling a debate we had all meeting.
or perhaps all year at GC. The debate that has followed my remarks about that guild council has been raging on since last friday. it sort of highlights what we do as a group, and that is insular navel gazing. do we really want to kid ourselves that we are a democratically elected body? or that we speak on behalf of students? do you really think any students will care about this tittle tattle we’re having?
“Privilege” not a requirement I would have thought