Guild Council Update
Getting back into the spirit of student politics came as a refreshing shock last night in the form of Guild Council. Having attended numerous meeting for what now seems like a tiny tiny organisation called Exeter College Students Union I had a fairly good idea of what to expect. Lots of talk about dreary issues that we had no power to implement or desire to do so from the students. However once in the Guild Council Chambers, with a little electronic voting card in my palm, I couldn’t help but feel like I’d got involved with something that could actually make some exciting changes. Any sense of cynicism that had built up over the course of last year left me and I waited, flicking through the agenda, for the rest of the councillors to take their seats. However personal impressions aside, what was it that was actually discussed and decided upon at last night’s council?
The guild has decided to sign up for the 10/10 campaign. This is a pledge to cut its emissions by ten per cent by 2010. The major political parties have signed up for this already, as have a thousands of individuals, businesses and organisations such as O2, Royal Mail, Comic relief and of course NUS! This is a great way to educate people about climate change and suggest simple ways they can cut their emissions. You can sign up at www.1010uk.org/ and take the challenge.
The guild also agreed to implement new policy which will promote blood donation on campus but oppose the archaic rules that the NHS has in place which do not allow gay or bi men to donate if they have had sex with a man in the last 12 months or for woman who have had sex with a man, who has had sex with a man in the last 12 months.
Among other things there is to be greater transparency between students and the Ethical and Environmental forum, the minutes of which are to be made available and consultations between students and the officer compulsory. This is great news as the more consultation we have with students the better our decisions will become.
Guild council was not all good news. We decided to allow shell oil to advertise in the guild. This is a serious ethical issue and I’m certain that if most students knew the implications of supporting such a company they would be appalled. Shell have pursued an anti-union policy and have drastically effected the environment in Peru where they recently installed several new oil platforms. Not to mention attempting to dump obsolete oil storage platforms in the North Sea Trench.
Birmingham University Labour Students
John Ritchie
Brigidjones
daveborland
dorameredith
bensemens
chrisblewitt
oliverjackson
maxattacks
joshualt
suzannahrobinson
kohalloran
jakelambertonline
smurphy2010
labourluke
bulsonline
Guardian Unlimited
As I said earlier, good to see the old blog up and running again, however I’m afraid I must take issue with your last paragraph.
I wasn’t at this last Guild Council, nor even in the same hemisphere, but I assume this part of your report refers to the “update on resolutions extant” section of proceedings.
A motion written and proposed by myself, “Careers Freedom of Choice”, was brought to the final Guild Council of the last academic year. This motion sought to overturn an existing ban on Shell advertising their careers or graduate job events within the Guild. The motion recieved near unianimous support from Guild councillors and from those normal students I consulted (mostly geologists, engineers and physicists, for obvious reasons). Can’t remember the exact figures, but I believe the motion passed by ~60-40.
By passing the motion, the Guild wasn’t endorsing, or even actively supporting Shell per se, merely supporting the free dissemination of important information to those career-seeking students and graduates who wish for it. One can frame the issue as “ethical” if one wishes to do so, however this was never supposed to be the case.
Whether a company/government/individual/etc. is ethical or not is, in my view, for the decision of the individual student. It is not for us, through a Union supposed to act in our collective best interests, to impose its own ethical rules on its members. I’m certain that most students, if they cared in the slightest about any alledged transgressions, would agree that the original ban was of little benefit to anyone, and to the detriment of a significant minority.
Apologies for what may seem a little bit of a rant, but I wanted to make sure the facts of the matter were straight.
Ooops, that was longer than I intended… sorry.
I’m amazed to see this comming from labour students, were not you lot very much behind the overturning of the shell ban?
I’m getting tired of this pretence of protecting freedom of choice Chris. The idea that we should protect advertising to protect freedom of choice seems to me a leap of logic that I cannot fathom. Freedom of choice based on free will requires the absence of coercion. As advertising is an industry designed to manipulate and coerce the target audience it seems a contradiction to protect advertising to protect freedom of choice.
I think our differences lie in where we draw the line at “our collective best interests”, I would extend that “our” to people all over the world, but then again I’m a unionist.
Some Labour students supported the overturn, some may not have done. I can’t speak for all, nor will I pretend we all agree. I don’t believe the original poster is displaying an ounce of hypocrisy.
Is one not more free when one is open to persuation than when one is not allowed access to any information? Chinese internet users are often blocked from accessing websites about “democracy”, “human rights” or “Tibet” – arguably they are thus free from these corrupting influences? Freedom of choice also requires the presence of information.
Besides which, the catch-all term “advertising” hardly applies. Posting details of an upcoming event may well be “advertising” it, but it is hardly attempting to “manipulate” or coerce anybody. Now maybe if there was free pizza involved – that would be tempting. But lumping event promotion in with, f’instance, subliminal “keep smoking” messages, is hardly fair is it?
Given that very little information is completely without bias, are we not just looking at two sides of the same coin?
I would define our (i.e. the Guild’s) “collective best interests” as covering all the current members of the student population at the University of Birmingham. We’re not here to save the world. We’re here for our members. But then again, I’m a student unionist.
Just one quick question if I may, if “protecting freedom of choice” is merely a “pretence”, what would you suggest is my true agenda? This all seems like rather a lot of bother for me to go to for a cause I alledgedly don’t really believe in.
The restrictions placed on information by dissemination through capitalistic channels can nearly as pervasive as directly physical repression although we can probably both agree that the Chinese model is much worse.
The space is the careers fair for information is not an area of free speech and choice; it comes at very at very high price and as such it reflects the hopelessly biased views of the large companies advertising there, your right all information is biased but the careers fair only caterers for one side.
I’m sorry chris, you clearly do believe freedom of choice, but so do I and I have given my actions a lot of thought.
as for trying to save the world…..
I’m not trying to save the world, but I do belive that in our work we shouldn’t directly undermine other simlar groups, who are just after the same thing … a better life.
I’m very pleased that this has caused so much debate. I’d like to point out that this is certainly only my view and not the view of the labour students and apologise for not making this obvious, I’d like to think there are those who agree with me and am of cause aware there are those who don’t. I stand by what I said, we shouldn’t support morally questionable companies but at the same time I am acutely aware that we need to respond in a way that is in the best interest of our students. If this means allowing Shell and others to advertise with us or face damaging student’s employability in these companies perhaps there is an argument in favour of this legislation. Personally I’m of two minds but we need to be aware that we have a responsibility to speak out about injustice and make people aware of it, as students we are in an excellent position to do so. Perhaps the right thing to do is not an out and out ban but to ensure that other perspectives are represented. That we have a range of companies at our employment fairs and maybe this means inviting, for want of a better word “greener”, more “ethical”, companies as well.
Apparently Ed would disagree; a quote from his manifesto:
“These green and ethical companies and groups don’t need to advertise, anyone who has ever attempted to get a job with one will tell you that they are inundated with applicants. Creating this space would be an embarrassing waste of time when the organisations don’t turn up.
The problem isn’t that these options are not presented to us; it is that they are not there. We can’t just make an empty room and hope that a better society appears, we need to build it from the ground up.”
Not exactly sure what his point is or what he’s suggesting we should do… Care to clarify Ed?
Sure, I thought I was quite clear back when I wrote that, I very like the idea in principle. I was once very much behind attempts for these alternatives; it is just shame that there are not enough of these companies around for it to feasible.
I think we need to utilise what democratic structures we have i.e the guild, unions, our consumer powers to put pressure on society to change and start setting up organizations with alternative models as working alternatives.
Have a look at http://www.ethicalcareers.org/
They don’t have many if any jobs available usually. they do run a guide on to how to start your own green or ethical business.
I would like less of who should we ban or disagree with now motions and more proactive discussion on gee I dunno ‘doing shit’
I’m beginning to wonder whether zatman’s hypothesised ‘loony left takeover’ is true, they’re planning to bore us out of council
Well, I’m actauly doing as much as I can, submitting a few issues for debate is not a major burden.
would you like to meet emma and i can talk to you about everthing I’m doing and you can tell me what you want me to do?
I don’t actually think it’s your fault, ethical and enviromental concerns just seem to be the only things we have a debate about anymore, and it’s kind of one of those things i am happy to leave to people with more knowledge and interest than i.
i do have one question though, all these ethical and environmental policies, protocols, procedures and forums etc. to the untrained and uninvolved eye such as mine, just appear to be more beaurocracy? I dont mean you to answer this on the reasons this particular set of procedures is or isn’t, just that is this not a general point about the beaurocracy you rail against, that it’s kind of in the eye of the beholder?
Your right, I’m sure there are people who find this debate annoying and boring and would rather I just took a lot of these decisions on my own or with the exec. I’m of the opinion that students don’t turn up to GC/ leave because they don’t see any meaningful decisions to take, to build active and involved council that “cares”, I think we need more decisions and debates at GC not less.
I think that is a little bit of a unfair question, within the guild we can’t “rail” (as you put it) against the concept of Bureaucracy itself i.e the idea that we should have standardized procedures and formal divisions of roles and powers, it is unfortunately only within our power to “rail” within the current Bureaucracy at what forms it should take. Yes I think that it is in the eye of the beholder and I have tried to take all my reforms to GC, however apparently GC doesn’t have the necessary powers to deal with these issues… so I have posted them on my blog and got positive responses.
Hello!
I’m a bit of a “blast from the past”. I was in BULS from 1995 to 1998 so was there when we took Edgbaston from the Tories in 1997.
I now work in West Cumbria in the nuclear industry. I spent some time working onsite at Sellafield though I now work offsite. I’d imagine there’d be a fair few people who’d want to ban Sellafield from recruiting at Brum Uni. Would I be right?